Skip to main content

Full text of "Domaine Chandon : the first French-owned California sparkling wine cellar : oral history transcript"

See other formats

University of California Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office University of California 

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California 

The Wine Spectator California Winemen Oral History Series 

John H. Wright 


With an Introduction by 
Maynard A. Amerine 

Includes an interview with Edmond Maudiere 

Interviews Conducted by 

Carole Hicke 

in 1991 

Copyright 1992 by The Regents of the University of California 

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading 
participants in or well -placed witnesses to major events in the development of 
Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral history is a modern research 
technique involving an interviewee and an informed interviewer in spontaneous 
conversation. The taped record is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity 
and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The resulting manuscript is typed 
in final form, indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and 
placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and 
other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, 
oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete 
narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in 
response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, 
and irreplaceable. 


All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement 
between The Regents of the University of California and John H. 
Wright dated January 20, 1992. The manuscript is thereby made 
available for research purposes. All literary rights in the 
manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The 
Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part 
of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written 
permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University 
of California, Berkeley. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be 
addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, 
University of California, Berkeley 94720, and should include 
identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated 
use of the passages, and identification of the user. The legal 
agreement with John H. Wright requires that he be notified of the 
request and allowed thirty days in which to respond. 

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: 

John H. Wright, "Domaine Chandon: The 
First French-owned California Sparkling 
Wine Cellar," an oral history conducted in 
1991 by Carole Hicke , Regional Oral 
History Office, The Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley, 1992. 

Copy no . 

John Wright, circa 1991 

Cataloging Information 

WRIGHT, John H. (b. 1933) Winery executive 

Domaine Chandon: The First French-owned California Sparkling Wine Cellar. 
1992, x, 151 pp. 

Establishing winery: Moet-Hennessey names Wright to head operation, 
building winery, staffing, choosing grape varieties; role of Moet & 
Chandon' s Maudiere in advising on blending, winery; growth of sparkling 
wine sales; marketing innovations; mechanical riddling and harvesting; 
present operations; opening of restaurant; methods of working with French 
owners; founding Domaine Chandon Australia; expansion into offshore sales; 
future of sparkling wine. Includes an interview with winemaker Edmond 
Maudiere (b. 1927). 

Introduction by Dr. Maynard A. Amerine, professor emeritus, Department of 
Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis. 

Interviewed in 1991 by Carole Hicke for the Wine Spectator California 
Winemen Oral History Series, The Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft 
Library, University of California, Berkeley. 



INTRODUCTION --by Maynard Amerine vi 





U.S. Army, 1954: Germany and German Wines 3 

Working for American Viscose Company 4 

Arthur D. Little, Inc. ; Developing an Interest in Wine 7 

Moving to Brussels, Belgium, 1965 11 

In California, 1969 14 

Growing Grapes in the Napa Valley 14 

Drip Irrigation 18 

Arthur D. Little: Investigation a Project in Brazil 22 

A Study of the Wine Industry, 1970 24 


Exploring the Possibilities 31 

Further Conferences with the French 33 

M. Poirier Tastes California Wines 37 


Starting Up, 1972 41 

A French Company in Napa Valley 42 

Working With the Trefethens 45 

Choosing the Grape Varieties 48 

Support and Involvement of the French Owners 50 

Taxes 52 

Champagne or Sparkling Wine? 54 

Marketing 56 


Winemaking 62 

Building and Equipping the Winery 66 

The Decision to Use the M6thode Champenoise 68 

Horizontal Tanks 70 

Some Aspects of Harvesting 71 

Presses 72 

Viticulture 74 

The Cuvees 76 

More on Presses 79 

The Domaine Chandon Restaurant 81 

The Visitors' Center and Museum 84 

Riddling and the Very Large Machines 85 

Fred's Friends 89 

More on Marketing 90 

Domaine Chandon in Australia 98 

Managing a Winery 100 

The Debut of Panache 102 

Buying the Shadow Creek Winery 103 

Viticulture Experiments 105 

Classic Methods/Classic Varieties Society 107 

Difference in Perspective of Large and Small Wineries 111 

Gazing Into the Crystal Ball 113 




First Responsibilities 118 

Grape Varieties 119 

Yeast 120 

Building the winery 121 

In the Winery 123 

Winemaking 130 

The Very Large Machines: Riddling 133 

The Wines 139 


INDEX 146 


The California wine industry oral history series, a project of the 
Regional Oral History Office, was initiated in 1969 through the action 
and with the financing of the Wine Advisory Board, a state marketing 
order organization which ceased operation in 1975. In 1983 it was 
reinstituted as The Wine Spectator California Winemen Oral History Series 
with donations from The Wine Spectator Scholarship Foundation. The 
selection of those to be interviewed is made by a committee consisting of 
the director of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; 
John A. De Luca, president of the Wine Institute, the statewide winery 
organization; Maynard A.'Amerine, Emeritus Professor of Viticulture and 
Enology, University of California, Davis; the current chairman of the 
board of directors of the Wine Institute; Ruth Teiser, series project 
director; and Marvin R. Shanken, trustee of The Wine Spectator 
Scholarship Foundation. 

The purpose of the series is to record and preserve information on 
California grape growing and winemaking that has existed only in the 
memories of wine men. In some cases their recollections go back to the 
early years of this century, before Prohibition. These recollections are 
of particular value because the Prohibition period saw the disruption of 
not only the industry itself but also the orderly recording and 
preservation of records of its activities. Little has been written about 
the industry from late in the last century until Repeal. There is a real 
paucity of information on the Prohibition years (1920-1933), although 
some commercial winemaking did continue under supervision of the 
Prohibition Department. The material in this series on that period, as 
well as the discussion of the remarkable development of the wine industry 
in subsequent years (as yet treated analytically in few writings) will be 
of aid to historians. Of particular value is the fact that frequently 
several individuals have discussed the same subjects and events or 
expressed opinions on the same ideas, each from his own point of view. 

Research underlying the interviews has been conducted principally in 
the University libraries at Berkeley and Davis, the California State 
Library, and in the library of the Wine Institute, which has made its 
collection of in many cases unique materials readily available for the 
purpose . 


The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape record 
autobiographical interviews with persons who have contributed 
significantly to recent California history. The office is headed by 
Willa K. Baura and is under the administrative supervision of The Bancroft 

Ruth Teiser 
Project Director 

The Wine Spectator California Winemen 
Oral History Series 

July 1992 

Regional Oral History Office 
486 The Bancroft Library 
University of California, Berkeley 


Interviews Completed July 1992 

Leon D. Adams, Revitalizing the California Wine Industry. 1974 

Leon D. Adams, California Wine Industry Affairs: Recollections and Opinions. 

Maynard A. Amerine, The University of California and the State's Wine 
Industry. 1971 

Maynard A. Amerine, Wine Bibliographies and Taste Perception Studies. 

Philo Biane, Wine Making in Southern California and Recollections of Fruit 
Industries . Inc . . 1972 

John B. Cella, The Cella Family in the California Wine Industry. 1986 

Charles Crawford, Recollections of a Career with the Gallo Winery and the 
Development of the California Wine Industry. 1942-1989. 1990 

Burke H. Critchfield, Carl F. Wente , and Andrew G. Frericks, The California 
Wine Industry During the Depression. 1972 

William V. Cruess, A Half Century of Food and Wine Technology. 1967 

Jack and Jamie Peterman Davies , Rebuilding Schramsberg: The Creation of a 
California Champagne House. 1990 

William A. Dieppe, Almaden is Mv Life. 1985 

Making California Port Wine: Ficklin Vineyards from 1948 to 1992. interviews 
with David, Jean, Peter, and Steven Ficklin, 1992 

Alfred Fromm, Marketing California Wine and Brandy. 1984 

Louis Gomberg, Analytical Perspectives on the California Wine Industry. 1935- 
1990. 1990 

Miljenko Grgich, A Croatian-American Winemaker in the Napa Valley. 1992 
Joseph E. Heitz, Creating a Winery in the Napa Valley. 1986 

Maynard A. Joslyn, A Technologist Views the California Wine Industry. 

Amandus N. Kasimatis, A Career in California Viticulture. 1988 

Morris Katz , Paul Masson Winery Operations and Management. 1944-1988. 1990 

Legh F. Knowles, Jr., Beaulieu Vineyards from Family to Corporate Ownership. 


Horace 0. Lanza and Harry Baccigaluppi , California Grape Products and Other 
Wine Enterprises. 1971 

Zelma R. Long, The Past is the Beginning of the Future: Simi Winery in its 
Second Century. 1992 

Richard Maher, California Winery Management and Marketing. 1992 

Louis M. Martini and Louis P. Martini, Wine Making in the Napa Valley. 

Louis P. Martini, A Family Winery and the California Wine Industry. 1984 

Eleanor McCrea, Stony Hill Vineyards: The Creation of a Napa Valley Estate 
Winery. 1990 

Otto E. Meyer, California Premium Wines and Brandy. 1973 

Norbert C. Mirassou and Edmund A. Mirassou, The Evolution of a Santa Clara 
Valley Winery. 1986 

Peter Mondavi, Advances in Technology and Production at Charles Krug Winery. 
1946-1988. 1990 

Robert Mondavi, Creativity in the Wine Industry. 1985 

Michael Moone , Management and Marketing at Beringer Vineyards and Wine World. 
Inc. . 1990 

Myron S. Nightingale, Making Wine in California. 1944-1987. 1988 
Harold P. Olmo, Plant Genetics and New Grape Varieties. 1976 

Cornelius Ough, Researches of an Enologist. University of California. Davis. 
1950-1990. 1990 

John A. Parducci, Six Decades of Making Wine in Mendocino County. California. 

Antonio Perelli-Minetti , A Life in Wine Making. 1975 

Louis A. Petri, The Petri Family in the Wine Industry. 1971 

Jefferson E. Peyser, The Law and the California Wine Industry. 1974 

Lucius Powers, The Fresno Area and the California Wine Industry. 1974 

Victor Repetto and Sydney J. Block, Perspectives on California Wines. 1976 

Edmund A. Rossi, Italian Swiss Colony and the Wine Industry. 1971 

Edmund A. Rossi, Jr., Italian Swiss Colony. 1949-1989: Recollections of a 
Third-Generation California Winemaker. 1990 

Arpaxat Setrakian, A. Setrakian. a Leader of the San Joaquin Valley Grape 
Industry. 1977 

Elie Skofis, California Wine and Brandy Maker. 1988 

Andre Tchelistcheff , Grapes. Wine, and Ecoloev. 1983 

Brother Timothy, The Christian Brothers as Wine Makers. 1974 

Louis (Bob) Trinchero, California Zinfandels. a Success Story. 1992 

The Wente Family and the California Wine Industry, interviews with Jean, 
Carolyn, Philip, and Eric Wente, 1992. 

Ernest A. Wente, Wine Making in the Livermore Valley. 1971 

Albert J. Winkler, Viticultural Research at UC Davis (1921-1971). 1973 

John H. Wright, Domaine Chandon: The First French-owned California Sparkling 
Wine Cellar, includes an interview with Edmond Maudiere, 1992 


INTRODUCTION --by Maynard A. Amerine 

The interview with John Wright gives the pertinent facts of his early 
history: schooling, a period in the army, and early positions with several 
companies, ending with Arthur D. Little, an important "think-tank" company. 
But most of the text covers how Wright got into planning, building, and 
operating a sparkling wine plant in Yountville in Napa County. It is a succes 
d'estime, and Wright tells the story with a flourish and justifiable pride. 

Fortunately for Wright, the start of the sparkling winery in 1972 was 
preceded by a 1968-1970 study of the California wine industry. An interview 
arranged by Arthur D. Little in Paris in March 1972 with Moet-Hennessy led to 
further meetings with executives of Moet & Chandon (the Champagne company) in 
August 1972. By the end of the year, planning had begun on a sparkling wine 
plant to be built in Yountville in the Napa Valley. The actual final contract 
is dated March 25, 1973. One concludes that Moet was lucky to get Wright, and 
that he was lucky to have such intelligent executives at Moet & Chandon in 
France . 

He tells the story with gusto and pride from the early years at the 
Trefethen winery to the planning and construction of the Domaine Chandon 
winery and restaurant. There were many problems, which Wright took in his 
stride. It is important that his French enologists were so careful in 
selection of the varieties of grapes to be used. However, it is clear that 
after the start, Wright was running the show, though with an ear to his bosses 
in France and with due attention to the advice of the two French enologists 
who periodically came from France for tasting and making the blends. It is 
significant that many new procedures and equipment were developed at 
Yountville under Wright's enthusiastic direction and with the cooperation of 
his staff. He gives specific praise to several of his staff. 

One concludes that Wright was a canny executive but a joy to work for. 
Managing a French- owned company in California must at times have been a 
headache, but you would not discover this from Wright's text. This tells one 
something important about the enthusiastic and thoughtful way Wright directed 
the whole affair. 

The second interview in this volume on the history of Domaine Chandon 
is with Edmond Maudiere. Maudiere is a French- trained enologist at Moet & 
Chandon who came to Domaine Chandon from time to time as an advisor after 
1972. He tells us about the climatic, varietal, and operational problems here 
from the point of view of a French- trained enologist primarily interested in 
the production of sparkling wines. 


Since Maudiere was in charge of making the blend, he had a very large 
influence on the character of the wines. As he frankly says, Domaine Chandon 
wines are not the same as the Moet & Chandon wines produced in France. And, 
as he says, they shouldn't be. Amen. 

During the interview, Maudiere discusses many aspects of grape growing 
and sparkling wine production methods in California and how they differ from 
those in France. He is obviously proud of his work at Domaine Chandon and of 
the changes in procedures that he has been responsible for. And he should be 

Domaine Chandon was the first large-scale investment in the California 
wine industry by a foreign company after Repeal. It did not cause any great 
excitement in the Napa Valley, as I recall. But it did attract a great deal 
of interest in France and Spain. Within a few years, at least four French 
sparkling wine producers had invested in wineries making sparkling wines in 
California. They were followed by two Spanish-owned sparkling wineries. All 
are still operating. 

It would not be easy to determine what specific influence Domaine 
Chandon had on each of these companies, but it surely cannot have been small, 
as far as their inception is concerned. 

Maynard A. Amerine 

St. Helena, California 
March 1992 


INTERVIEW HISTORY- -John H. Wright and Edmond Maudiere 

Domaine Chandon, Napa Valley maker of sparkling wine, lists an 
impressive number of California winemakers "firsts": first French-owned 
sparkling winery; first North Coast winery to use mechanical harvesting 
at night; first to use reserve wines for consistency of style and 
quality; first to develop mechanical riddling. The list goes on. In 
order to document the advent of this sparkling wine house in California, 
John H. Wright, president and chairman of the board of M & H Vineyards, 
Inc. (Domaine Chandon), and Edmond Maudiere, consulting winemaker to the 
Napa Valley winery and chef de caves of parent company Moet-Hennessy , 
were interviewed as part of the Wine Spectator California Winemen Oral 
History Series. 

Wright, an energetic man whose zeal and dedication to his work show 
clearly in his oral history, began his career as a market development 
specialist, later becoming a management consultant for Arthur D. Little, 
Inc. He grew a few grapevines and made a little wine as a hobby. His 
three -volume marketing study on the future of the wine industry attracted 
the attention of Moet-Hennessey in the early 1970s, and Wright was asked 
to head the company's new venture in Napa Valley, a sparkling winery (as 
it calls itself), which would open in 1977 as Domaine Chandon. 

The project was built literally from the ground up, with Wright 
overseeing the purchase of grapes and vineyards, the wine production, and 
the construction of the winery. Wright was everywhere; the president 
thought nothing of working on the bottling line, packing down cardboard 
in the dumpster, or waiting tables at the Domaine Chandon restaurant, in 
addition to his duties as host to visiting titled Frenchmen from the 
parent company. He himself characterizes his style of management as more 
one of leadership than of management, less structured as to organization, 
but with an emphasis on the importance of the people employed at the 

Help in abundance came from Moet's Edmond Maudiere, not only a 
chemist, microbiologist , and master blender but an architect as well. 
His contribution to the development of the winery proved crucial in many 
areas, from the building of the winery to blending the cuvees , and he 
continues to advise winemaker Dawnine Dyer in the blending of the wines, 
which are made in the traditional methods champenoise. Their latest 
effort resulted in the creation of the grande cuvee, etoile, which made 
its debut in late 1991. 


Wright was interviewed on two days, April 10 and May 6, 1991. The 
first interview took place in a conference room that was serving as his 
office during a renovation. The second was in the winery itself, where 
there was a small office on the second floor. 

The interview with Maudiere was conducted on September 11, 1991, 
when he was in California for the crush. It began in an office and 
continued on a tour of the winery, during which he discussed the history 
of the winery as it affected the present operations. For example, he 
described the method of tracking the shipments and, in the bottling room, 
told of the development of the VLMs (Very Large Machines) for riddling 
automatically nearly 4,000 bottles at a time. He offered some 
observations about the differences between the Napa Valley and the 
Champagne area of Epernay, France, in viticulture and winemaking. At 
every step, M. Maudiere demonstrated his total immersion in the art of 
making sparkling wine and his enthusiasm for finding the right ways of 
doing it in California. The innovative spirit he brought to Moet & 
Chandon Champagne -making has contributed to the development of Domaine 
Chandon's distinctive sparkling wines. 

Wright and Maudiere reviewed their transcripts and made minor 
changes. Grateful thanks go to Diane Sol, Director of Communications at 
Domaine Chandon, who coordinated interview plans and provided tours and 
background information to orient the interviewer. She and Virginia Davis 
found photographs to illustrate the volumes. 

This series is part of the ongoing documenting of California history 
by the Regional Oral History Office, which is under the direction of 
Willa Baum, Division Head, and under the administrative direction of The 
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. 

Carole Hicke 
Interviewer -Editor 

May 1992 

Regional Oral History Office 

Berkeley, California 

Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 The Bancroft Library 

University of California 
Berkeley, California 94720 

Your full name 

Date of birth_ 

Father's full name 

Mother's full name 

Occupation , 

Your spouse 

Your children 


(Please write clearly. Use black ink.) 


4yu^ A A ** 
~~~/7 / 

If /?/3 Birthplace 



Where did you grow up? /"^ 

Present community 

Education /^ \A 


/A/ *<i/tf 

Occupation ( 

/ - 

Areas of expertise 

Other interests or activities 

4 UL - 

Organizations in which you are active 




[Interview 1: April 10, 1991 ]#// ! 

Hicke: I'd like to start this morning by asking you when you were 

Wright: I was born on July 28, 1933. 

Hicke: Where? 

Wright: In Buffalo, New York, at Children's Hospital. 

Hicke: Were you raised in the Buffalo area? 

Wright: No, I was fortunate to have spent only four cold winters there 
[laughs]. Then we moved to Illinois. We lived outside of 
Chicago for about seven years, and then we moved to Virginia. 
My father I call laughingly an itinerant chemical engineer. 
He was a chemical engineer who worked mainly in viscose 
processes, at one time with the DuPont Company, and they 
tended to switch people around, so he lived in a few different 
places . 

Afterwards he worked for American Viscose Corporation. 
I was about eleven or twelve when we moved to Fredericksburg, 
Virginia, so my formative high school years were spent there. 
Then I went to Middletown, Connecticut, to Wesleyan 
University, where I got my Bachelor of Arts; my major was in 
chemistry. Wesleyan had at that time- -and probably still- - 

] This symbol (////) indicates that a tape or segment of a 
tape has begun or ended. For a guide to the tapes, see p. 145. 

such a devout liberal arts philosophy that they never even 
gave a B.S. in those days; you got a Bachelor of Arts even if 
you majored in sciences. 


U.S. Army. 1954: Germany and German Wines 





I got out of Wesleyan in 1954, and since that was pretty much 
during the Korean War, I decided to volunteer for the draft to 
get it over with quickly. I had the very good fortune of not 
going to Korea but going to Germany and being stationed right 
in the Rhinegau district in the Mainz. 

What base? 

It was in Geinsenheim, a little town up the river from Mainz. 
At that time the 2nd Armored Division was stationed there. I 
wound up as a medic when I got into the army, and it was the 
medical battalion that was in Mainz. It was probably one of 
the earliest times that I really started to get interested in 
wines as a hobby. My oldest brother, who was in the Second 
World War and then took his discharge in Vienna for about 
three or four years, came back with a rather avid interest in 
wines, primarily Austrian wines. That perhaps had an 
influence on me, but when I got over to Germany and was 
stationed right by the vineyards, it really sparked my 
interest and I guess made wine a hobby. 

Mostly just tasting at that point? 
Yes, mostly just tasting. [laughs 

I didn't make any then. 

We were stationed there, too, for a while, and I very well 
remember that the fall came around, and they would have wine 
festivals up and down the "weinstrasse . " 


Wright: Yes, up in Rudesheim and that area. I was there about '55, 

'56. I can remember you'd get about five marks to the dollar, 
and I lived like a king on a corporal's pay. [laughs] I used 
to play a fair amount of golf; I played on the college team. 
Shortly after I got to Germany, I had the good fortune to get 
on the division golf team; so I spent that first summer really 
not as a soldier but as a golfer, which was quite marvelous. 
We went down to Garmisch, over to Berlin and Frankfurt and 
places like that. That was great. 

By the time I had come back from the "circuit," my whole 
battalion was transferred to a place called Baumholder, which 
is in the middle of nowhere. It's one of the few places in 
Germany where they can run tanks around without destroying 
everything. I unfortunately had to move out there, and that 
was not too pleasant, other than the fact that it wasn't too 
far from Bernkastel, so when I could I would get over to 
Bernkastel and got to know the Mosel a little bit. But that 
was certainly not as nice as being in Mainz /Wiesbaden, where 
there were a lot more things to do. I took in the Wiesbaden 

Hicke: Wiesbaden is a lovely town. 

Wright: Yes, and it wasn't damaged like Mainz was. You go back today, 
and Mainz is almost unrecognizable. 

Hicke: Yes, Mainz was pretty well flattened. Have you been back? 

Wright: Yes. One of our cousin companies is Sichel Sohne, Peter 

Sichel's company, which makes Blue Nun and also quite a number 
of regional Rhine and Mosel estate wines. Their main facility 
is outside of Mainz, so I've been there two or three times. 

Working for American Viscose Company 

Wright: When I got out of the army, I got back to the States and 
fairly soon found a job in the packaging business in 

Hicke: This was American Viscose Corporation? 

Wright: Yes, working out of Philadelphia. That was quite exciting and 
interesting, because it was just at the point when 

supermarkets were really growing, and the whole concept of 
self-service merchandising was coming into its own. People 
were recognizing that packaging was a very integral part of 
marketing. American Viscose was subsequently bought by FMC 
[Corporation] . 

Hicke: But this was before that? 

Wright: Yes. It was interesting, too, in that it taught me a little 
bit about technical obsolescence. Cellophane was basically 
invented by a Frenchman, whose name I forget right nowthe 
whole viscose process, but I think principally cellophane- -in 
the twenties. It came to the States, and in fact my father I 
think was at the first plant that was built at Niagara Falls 
and Buffalo with French technology. It was a DuPont plant. 

Cellophane sort of got its origins in the Depression. 
Of course, during the Second World War not much happened 
industrially with a lot of things, but it really boomed after 
the war. American Viscose was then called Sylvania Industrial 
Corporation, located in Fredericksburg. They asked my father 
to come down to be the technical director. They were the 
second producer of cellophane after DuPont. Business was 
really booming when I started coming into the thing because of 
all the supermarket packaging requirements. But looming out 
on the horizon was the whole area of petrochemicals- - 
polyethylene, polypropylene, high- density polyethylene, all 
the polymers. 

It was one of those cases where it was pretty darned 
evident, if you really sat back and looked at it, that the 
days of cellophane were numbered, just because of the 
fundamental costs of regenerated cellulose versus 
petrochemicals. The company, rather than really understanding 
this and doing what they could probably have done at that 
point, particularly with polypropylenes , just decided, "Well, 
economics- -we can't make the same return on investment in 
plastics that we can in cellophane," so they just put their 
heads in the sand. And that company doesn't exist anymore. 
It literally went out of business; the plants all shut down. 
That was the major employer in Fredericksburg, Virginia. 
Fortunately- -I guess it's fortunately; it depends -- 
Fredericksburg has now become a bedroom community for 
Washington, so the economy of Fredericksburg is actually 
significantly better today than it was when American Viscose 
was there. 

It was really kind of interesting, and I realized how 
quickly, through technical obsolescence, a booming industry 
all of a sudden, poof, went nowhere, which made me feel a 
little bit better about wine, because I don't think wine is 
going to be obsoleted very soon by something else. [laughs] 

Hicke: I love that display down there in your waiting room that shows 
that wine goes back a long, long way. 

Wright: In some ways it might not be quite as glamorous as a high- 
tech, very fast-changing industry, but it has its advantages. 

Hicke: Did your chemical background provide you any help in this 
cellophane business? 

Wright: Oh, absolutely. I was in the market development group, which 
I later found out was supposed to have been a sales training 
program. I was one of the first people. They were thinking 
at that time that rather than hiring sales people- -people who 
had a knack for sales but no real technical background- -they 
would see what happened if they could get some people who had 
some technical background and put them into sales. There were 
two of us, actually- -the other fellow was Bob Ridgeway- -who 
started at the same time and had our degrees with chemistry 
maj ors . 

Hicke: I would say that was probably a good idea. 

Wright: I think so. Actually, though, for me, I got so interested in 
market development because I felt it was so much more creative 
to come up with ideas new ideas for packaging and new 
products within the spectrum, and helping potential customers 
work on package concepts- -that finally I declined going into 
sales, because I didn't think I ' d be a very good salesman 
anyway. I don't know if it was that as much as it was that I 
was more interested in marketing and market development than I 
was, really, in the sales. 

I stayed at Avisco [American Viscose Company] about four 
years. I started in '56, and I guess I left in '60 or '61. 
As I said, it was quite fascinating, because the packaging 
industry is fascinating, particularly in those days. 

Hicke: It was kind of a new concept, wasn't it? 

Wright: Yes, it really was --the importance of packaging as part of a 
marketing-merchandising spectrum. But I also liked the 

technical parts --the protection part: water vapor 
transmission rates, oxygen transmission rates, and all this 
was kind of fun. 

Hicke: Was radiated food--? 

Wright: Just starting. In fact, in Natick, Massachusetts, the army 

was really starting to get into that. Radiated food was very 
interesting because it could use flexible packaging as opposed 
to metal cans and that sort of thing, and basically that's 
what we were in, the flexible packaging business. So we 
started to do some things there. 

Arthur D. Little. Inc.: Developing an Interest in Vinemaking 

Wright: What happened, I guess, was that I was getting a little bit 
bored and looking potentially for change. I guess I saw an 
ad- -I forget what happened, but it must have been an ad- -from 
Arthur D. Little, which is a consulting company in Cambridge, 
Mass., for somebody who had a good background in packaging, 
particularly flexible packaging, and a technical education. I 
went and interviewed for that and was very fortunate in being 
hired by Arthur D. Little. The fellow who actually hired me, 
Peter Baker, had decided to move from headquarters in 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, down to New York to start a group. 
He felt he could start a kind of package -oriented group with a 
bit more freedom being away from headquarters than he could 
being at headquarters. 

They really gave me the choice of either going into what 
they called the industrial management division of Arthur D. 
Little in Cambridge, which was primarily a group of people who 
were chemical engineers and worked primarily in the chemical, 
plastics, paper, packaging industries, or going to New York. 
Since I really felt that Peter was pretty much my mentor in 
many ways, I went to New York. We just had a small group, and 
I worked in New York for about four years for a lot of 
different clients, mostly pulp and paper, glass, metal, 
flexible packaging, et cetera. 

Hicke: What were you doing? 

Wright: Some of it was fairly straightforward. Market research: 
we've got a new product; is there a market for it? In 

retrospect, it was interesting because it also taught me 
something. We took a rather interesting approach to doing 
"market research" for technical products. Rather than just 
saying, "Well, demand is this, growth is this; therefore this 
is what the future is going to be," we really worked pretty 
hard on developing what the properties were of a potential new 
product or an existing one- -polyethylene , we'll say- -and then 
trying to match it up with potential end uses. We did our 
forecast more on the basis of seeing where new end uses could 
come in, which were not predictable based upon the past. It 
certainly taught me that trying to predict the future based 
purely on the past isn't always that accurate. In fact, if 
changes occur on the supply side of a particular industry, 
demand could be very, very much affected. 

Hicke: Are you sort of saying that you were not just looking at 
whether the market is there, but the possibilities for 
developing the market? 

Wright: Possibilities for developing the market. I'd say, really, if 
you go into consumer type products, try to look at what I call 
consumer need rather than want. You ask, "What would you 
buy?" "Well, I want this, and I want that." But they can't 
tell you what they want if it isn't there. Whereas if you can 
understand what their needs are, then conceptually you can 
come up with a product that they could never tell you they 
wanted, because it didn't exist. But you come up with it, and 
you create a new market, if you will, or an extension of a 
market. None of that is generally picked up in what I call 
conventional market research. 

Hicke: You must have been on the cutting edge of that type of thing. 

Wright: Oh, it was kind of fun. I enjoyed it. Actually, it carried 

forward into Domaine Chandon, which I'll maybe get to a little 
bit later. 

Hicke: Yes, I'd like to hear about that. 

Wright: Quite a bit later on I did more feasibility studies and 

strategic studies, and then I was transferred to the European 
office, in part because I wanted to go to Europe- -I'd done 
some projects over there --in part because I spoke pretty good 
German in those days, so I had some language capability. 

Hicke: Before we get to Europe, though- -you planted some grapes? 

Wright: Oh, yes, that's true. My gosh, I can't overlook that. My 

actual winemaking follies [laughs] or whatever, really kind of 
got started when I lived in Philadelphia and was working for 
Avisco. I was browsing through the public library, called the 
Free Library in Philadelphia, which is a lovely library. I 
was really in the cookbook section; I was sort of interested 
in looking at things, because 1 like to cook. Lo and behold, 
1 came across, in that same area- -in fact, 1 almost remember 
the Dewey decimal number a book on home winemaking by a 
fellow named Hedrick [professor at Cornell] or something like 
that. I devoured that, took it home, and started saying, 
"Well, this is great stuff," and I decided I would make some 

That fall I managed to convince two of my colleagues at 
Avisco to join me in this adventure. I located some grapes 
out near Atlantic City, New Jersey, and with, I must confess, 
virtually no prior planning in terms of equipment or how we 
were going to do all this, we charged off in Jim's station 
wagon to this vineyard. They were picked grapes; we had 
ordered them ahead. They were called supposedly champagne 
grapes. I think they were the Adams grape, fairly foxy, but 
not as foxy as a Concord or a Niagara. It was a pink grape. 

We loaded them onto the station wagon- -with fruit flies 
all around- -and we got to Jim's house. He was the only one 
with a house; I lived in an apartment, and Bob lived in an 
apartment, so Jim was the victim. He had a house with a 
cellar, and we got the stuff down there. Literally, we didn't 
even have a crusher, but we found a neighbor who, lo and 
behold, had a crusher. So we crushed the stuff into a barrel. 
We didn't have a press. I mean, we were trying to make white 
wine with no press. I said, "What we'll do it's not the 
ideal, but I think I can design a press and get the stuff 
done, but let's ferment it on the skins, and then we'll press; 
it'll have less pectin." 

We got it started, and Jim went off on a business trip. 
I told his wife, Nancy, "Look, what you've got to do is knock 
the cap down at least twice and maybe three or four times a 
day." She said, "Oh, yeah, yeah." Well, about three days 
later she called me in the office and said, "John Wright?" 
[bright and bubbly] "Hi, Nancy, how's it going?" "You get 
over here right away. My whole house smells of vinegar." So 
I went out, and, oh, the house reeked of vinegar. I said, 
"Gee, this is great. Let's decant it and bottle it up." She 
said, "I want it out of here!" So I took it out in the yard 
and dumped it. That was my first experience, which wasn't too 




In the next two or three years I would go down to the 
market; we used to call it the Italian market in Philadelphia. 
They had grapes coming in from California. The real premium 
grape was the Cucamonga Zinfandel; that's what you paid a 
little bit more for. I made some pretty good wine from those 
grapes. It was kind of fun. 

When I moved to Arthur D. Little, I moved from 
Philadelphia to Wilton, Connecticut, and bought a place with a 
couple of acres of land. In between all this I was reading 
every wine book I could find. I picked up this book by Philip 
Wagner, who was really the father of the Franco -American 
hybrids; he was the one to promote hybrids in this country. I 
thought, "This is really interesting. I can grow some 
grapes." From his nursery, Boordy Vineyard, which was in 
Maryland- -he had both a winery and a nursery--! bought some 
Seyve Villard and Baco [noir] , I guess, and proceeded to plant 
those. Oh, I had three or four hundred vines, I guess. 

The year that they would have borne fruit, I was 
transferred to Brussels, so I never did- -actually , a friend of 
mine did go in one year and make wine from it, so I did have 
that wine when I got back from Brussels. 

Did you have a press? 

Oh, by that time I had everything. Yes, I finally got smart 
[laugh] and bought the right kind of equipment. It was only 
the first year that was as disastrous as it was. 

How much wine would you make? 

Oh, a hundred or a hundred and fifty gallons. 

That's a lot for a home. 

Two or three barrels. 

Meanwhile, were you drinking wine for dinner and other 

Oh, yes. 

What kinds of wines were you drinking? 


Wright: [laughs] That's interesting. In Philadelphia, which is a 

state-store situation, there wasn't an enormous variety, by 
any means. My house wine was a Zinfandel from the East Side 
Winery in Lodi , California, an independent co-op winery. My 
recollection is that it was a very good wine, and it was about 
sixty -five cents a quart. Probably if I had that same wine 
today, I would have a somewhat different view of it, but at 
that point in time it was a quite acceptable wine. In terms 
of acceptability, if it were duplicated today it probably 
still would be; it's just that I don't think I would probably 
like it quite as well as I did. 

Hicke: Most of these wines were sweet wines? 

Wright: Yes, I was considered a bit of an oddball. I did a lot of 
proselytizing, and very soon it became a habit; you get 
interested in and like wine, and all of a sudden you become 
the expert. Colleagues at work would come around and say, 
"We're going to have a dinner, and we're going to have wine. 
What would you suggest?" 

Hicke: You developed your market. [laughter] 

Wright: I would say that more often than not we would have wine with 

Hicke: Okay, you're about to move to Brussels. 

Wright: It was originally going to be Zurich, Switzerland, but then 
the Swiss really, started cracking down on work permits for 
foreigners, so Arthur D. Little's European headquarters moved 
from Zurich to Brussels. 

Moving to Brussels. Belgium. 1965 

Hicke: What year was this? 

Wright: This was 1965. 

Hicke: What were you doing when you went over there? 


all my clients were European; they were not generally American 
companies. That kind of gave me an insight into both 
similarities and differences that exist between European and 
American companies, and even within Europe there are some big 
differences between British companies, French companies, Dutch 
companies, German companies. 

Hicke: Did you have all those as clients? 

Wright: Oh, yes. Italian, Swiss, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, 
British, French, Belgian. No Spanish; I never had a Spanish 
client or Portuguese --oh, I did a little bit, but not very 
much. I was in a sense doing sort of the same stuff, but I 
was doing it in a different environment. That was really 
quite interesting. 

Hicke: You were still bottling wines? 

Wright: There are grapes grown in Belgium in hothouses, beautiful 

table grapes --these huge Royales , they call them, big, black 
grapes that they packaged sort of like the Japanese package in 
styrofoam and beautiful sorts of things and sold them for a 
fortune. They obviously didn't make very good wine, but the 
table grape business was fairly large; that and endive were 
two rather important agricultural activities on the outskirts 
of Brussels. 

Hicke: Belgian endive, of course. 

Wright: Yes, which the French call chicon, and the Flems call it 
witloof, meaning white leaf. 

But up in the northern end of Brussels, by the Card du 
Nord station, there were two or three companies that brought 
in wine in barrels from Bordeaux and Burgundy mainly. There 
were really some good ones, like Vosne-Romanee; I remember 
that Vosne-Romanee was great. So I'd go there and buy barrels 
and take them home and bottle them. I saved a lot of money by 
doing that. Besides, it was fun. I guess I got rid of my 
winemaking urge by bottling barrels that I bought. 

After about five years in Brussels, even though I was 
traveling all over the place, I really got fed up with the 
climate. The climate in Northern Europe is dismal, as you 
well know. Just day after day of-- 


Wright: --clouds and worse. The chairman of the board of Arthur D. 
Little at that time was General James Gavin, who died only a 
year ago. He was a really incredible man, who had been the 
head of the 82nd Airborne Division in the Second World War at 
the age of twenty- five. Jumping Jim, they called him. He 
basically got into West Point by having gone into the army 
first. He came from a family that was not at all well-to-do 
and managed to work his way through the army into West Point. 

He became under [President Dwight D.] Eisenhower the 
head of research and development for the army and had a major, 
major falling out with Eisenhower and [Secretary of State John 
Foster] Dulles, claiming in his mind that wars of the future 
were really not going to be nuclear, and the amount of money 
and time we were spending on building up this whole nuclear 
concept should be reassessed, and that wars of the future were 
going to require highly mobile forces. [laughs] He was dead 
on! He was absolutely correct. 

He became quite outspoken about this, and as a result 
Eisenhower, I guess, demoted him. He resigned and left the 
army, and Arthur D. Little hired him to be the chairman. The 
guy was not only a great figurehead but actually was a very, 
very brilliant man, not only in terms of military things but 
in other things, too. In fact, I well remember that after I 
moved out here to California, during the Vietnam War, we were 
all in a meeting in a conference room, and one of us asked 
him, "Jim, what do you think of the war?" God, he went to the 
blackboard and laid it out, and you could see we were in the 
craziest thing we could ever be in. Really, in about a half 
an hour he turned me from being either somewhat pro-Vietnam or 
at least neutral to being vehemently anti-the war, just 
listening to him. It was incredible how he could succinctly 
boil all this down and explain it to you. 

Hicke: And nobody was listening. 

Wright: Nobody was listening, that's right. [General Matthew] 

Ridgeway was on his side; I think there were three or four ex- 
generals . 

In the meantime, though, he was ambassador to France 
under [President John F. ] Kennedy and really came back to 
Arthur D. Little in part because he couldn't afford to be 
ambassador to France. Being ambassador to France or the U.K. 


normally requires a lot of private money, and Jim didn't have 

Anyway, Jim was over in Brussels for a trip, and I went 
to him and said, "Look, Jim, I'm really fed up with the 
climate, and I'm kind of getting bored, so I think I'll just 
call it quits." I didn't have any idea what I was going to 
do. He said, "No, no, don't do that. Why leave Arthur D. 
Little?" I said, "Well, I don't know; I guess maybe you're 
right." He said, "You want to go to London?" I said, "I'll 
take a look at that." I did, and I sort of looked around and 
decided I really didn't want to go to London; even though it 
had certain aspects that Brussels didn't have, it still had 
the same climate. Also, London has always been horrendously 
expensive in housing, even then, relative to what people 

Putting it all together, one of the options was San 
Francisco, and I figured, "Ah! That will get me out here [to 
California], and I can start to pursue what I've always wanted 
to do, and that's buy a few little acres of land and start 
growing grapes." So that's what I did; I transferred to San 

Hicke: Was this in '72? 

Wright: No, this was 1969. I was in Brussels from 
No, '72 is another sort of a landmark. 

65 until late '69. 

In California. 1969 

Growing Grapes in the Napa Valley 

Wright: While I was still in Brussels I had taken a trip to San 

Francisco prior to the formal acceptance of me in the San 
Francisco office and my decision as to whether I wanted to 
really do it or not. One of the senior staff members in the 
San Francisco office, a fellow named Dick Lynn, was 
negotiating to buy a piece of property up in the mountains of 
St. Helena from a fellow named Al Menasco. Al had a vineyard 
there with a bunch of different varieties- -Grenache , even some 
old Alicante, and he was getting into Cabernet and Pinot noir, 
and he had Pinot blanc and Camay. A beautiful, beautiful 


property, very hilly and tough to grow grapes on, particularly 
in those days before drip irrigation and so forth. 

Al was fairly elderly then- -I think he was in his late 
seventies --and was a pioneer in the aircraft industry; there's 
a Menasco engine that is very famous . He was a real buddy of 
Clark Gable and a lot of Hollywood people. Clark used to 
spend time up there at the Menasco ranch. 

Dick managed to get enough partners together, and I 
became one of those partners, to purchase the property from 
Al. That started me off right away being at least partially 
involved in vineyards. We'd go up on the weekends. 

Hicke: Is this Pickle Canyon? 

Wright: No, this was called Lyncrest Vineyards, which is now owned by 
a friend of mine who was a partner even then, Mike Mars ton, 
and it's now called Marston Vineyards. It's up on Sulphur 
Springs Road going all the way up the mountain. 

I guess I still had itchy feet, partly because Dick was 
somewhat autocratic about who could do what in the vineyard; 
so I decided I really wanted also a piece of property myself. 
In fact, I did sell my partnership to Dick in order to get 
some money to buy my own property. 

Hicke: If you're in a partnership like that, can you pick the grapes? 
You say he was somewhat autocratic; are you talking about 
running the vineyard? 

Wright: I wanted to do certain things, and I guess I felt I didn't 

have as much involvement as I would have liked to have. Also 
it was a bit farther to go from Mill Valley, and I thought I 
would like to find something down valley a little bit but 
still in the mountains. I was convinced that mountain 
vineyards really did have an edge on quality. 

Meanwhile I had- -according to him- -lured out to Napa an 
old school friend of mine. We went to college together, and 
he went on to McGill University and went into psychiatry. His 
name is Herb McGrew. I convinced Herb to come out and be a 
partner with me in the vineyard. Herb was at that point 
practicing in New York and kind of thinking of going to New 
Mexico and maybe growing grapes, among other things. So I 
steered him away from New Mexico, and he came out and had no 
problem becoming a staff physician at Napa State Hospital. 


Herb and I got together, and we bought this property in 
Pickle Canyon in the spring of 1970, so it didn't take very 
long. I remember I was in Brazil, and we were bidding on 
something else in a probate court, and we lost that, which in 
retrospect was good that we did. Then this came up. 

Hicke: Were there vines there? 

Wright: No, it was an old prune orchard, and we proceeded to get about 
ten acres cleared. We might have even planted it in 1970, we 
moved so fast. If not, we planted in '71; I can't recollect 
right now. We managed to find some roots tock at the last 
minute, which was the wrong kind, but that's all right, 
[laughs] In those days St. George was always recommended for 
hillside vineyards because the St. George has a root structure 
that goes right down. Hillside vineyards in those days were 
notable for being stressed during bloom period because there 
was no water, no irrigation. Therefore the St. George was 
deemed to be better in this drought condition. As it turns 
out, St. George is a pretty lousy rootstock in terms of bloom; 
because it's so vigorous at bloom time, you do tend to get a 
set that's much less regular than with A x R or some of the 
other rootstocks now--S04, et cetera. 

Hicke: Did you go to somebody at Davis? 

Wright: More the county farm advisor, which is connected, obviously. 

When we first came here it was Jim Lider, and then Keith Bower 
came after that. We were pretty rank amateurs, but we managed 
to get five thousand roots planted, about ten acres worth. 

Hicke: Who is "we"? 

Wright: Oh, Herb and his wife, my wife then, and some other friends. 

Particularly important, up the hill --up Mt. Veeder, sort of on 
the top, past Mayacamas and Lokoya Road, there was what was 
really a commune of what would then be called hippies, and a 
little farther on was a place called The Farm. I met somebody 
who met somebody, and basically folks from The Farm helped us 
out a lot, too, on our payroll. They were primarily 
responsible, along with us, for getting the vineyard planted. 

Hicke: Did they have any experience- -or did you, for that matter? 


Wright: No, rank amateurs. The soil conservation service came and 
helped us lay out the contours , but other than that it was 
pretty much reading the book and doing it. It worked, 
[laughs] I'd do it differently today, but it worked. 
Actually, one or two of those people still work for Chandon 
now. Count Robert Jean de Vogue, when he came over for his 
first visit and saw them working- -this was when [Moet &] 
Chandon was looking- - "You know, I think they are retired 
'ippies." [laughs]. 

Hicke: What did you plant? 

Wright: My initial plan was to plant Cabernet and Merlot. I thought 
Merlot was going to be a hot grape. It was hardly ever 
planted then, so there wasn't much around. I was right, and I 
wish I had planted more. My next door neighbors at that time, 
Mike and Arlene Bernstein, had bought and had planted a 
vineyard which today is Mt. Veeder Winery. Mike had planted 
primarily Cabernet. We were talking, and he says, "Why plant 
Cabernet?" The curious thing is that Mike was an antitrust 
lawyer [laughs], and there he was trying to say "Don't plant 
Cabernet; we'll be too competitive." Basically that's what he 
was saying. I thought that was really wonderful. 

He convinced us, or basically we convinced ourselves 
that maybe we would just do- -what we wound up doing was 
Zinfandel and Merlot, and we did a little bit of Chenin blanc, 
which I subsequently grafted over with Chardonnay. To this 
day I don't know why I decided I ' d do any Chenin blanc. Then 
in what was supposed to be all Zinfandel, 10 or 12 percent of 
the cuttings turned out to be the Camay beaujolais clone of 
Pinot noir. To this day we have to go through the vineyard 
twice and pick that out. 

Hicke: They were just mixed in with the rest? 

Wright: Yes, supposedly certified Zinfandel. I won't tell you where 
they came from. They didn't come from Davis. They came from 
a winery that had a supposedly good certification program. 

Hicke: Other than advice from your neighbor, how else did you decide 
what to plant? 

Wright: Basically I planted what I liked. [laughs] That's about as 
scientific as you can get. I planted what I liked as wine. 

Hicke: You knew Zinfandel from way back. 


Wright: Yes. I thought Mountain Zin would be really good, and it is. 
It's just that up until the White Zin boom it would have been 
more profitable had I planted everything in Merlot, or if I 
had planted half Cabernet and half Merlot, or if I had planted 
Chardonnay earlier. But that's hindsight. 

The Merlot at Pickle Canyon Vineyards has always been in 
great demand. The problem with Merlot is that everywhere, but 
particularly, it seems like, in hillsides --and maybe it's 
partly the St. George rootstock, too- -it doesn't set very 
well; it has very loose clusters. I don't think I ever got 
more than two and a half tons to the acre. 

Drip Irrigation 

Wright: At that time there was a really interesting technological 
development taking place, and that was drip irrigation. I 
immediately got interested in that and fascinated with it, and 
I think I was probably one of the first to put in drip 
irrigation for vineyards. Drip irrigation, more than any 
other single thing in my opinion, has revolutionized the 
economics of growing grapes in places like on a mountainside 
or down at Carneros , where you've got very shallow soil and 
you don't have the holding capacity of water like you have in 
the mid Napa Valley. 

In those days Rene di Rosa was the pioneer in Carneros 
at Winery Lake [Vineyard] . Rene was lucky to get a ton to an 
acre in those days in Carneros, and a couple of others- -Buena 
Vista was a little later and were getting very low yields in 
Carneros. Typical yields on the hillsides would be a ton and 
a half or two tons to the acre, but with drip irrigation we at 
Chandon are now getting five, five and a half, sometimes six 
tons to the acre in Carneros, and we're getting, oh, four or 
four and a half tons up in the mountains . 

Hicke: Can you explain that a little bit? 

Wright: It's really because drip irrigation, if you do it at the right 
time, prevents stress on the vine in May. If the vine gets 
stressed just about flowering time, it tells itself, "Hey, I 
don't want to propagate myself, so I've got to watch myself 
and not set too much seed." Being able to keep the vine 


unstressed during bloom and into set makes an enormous 
difference on final yield. Once the crop is set, then you 
want the vine to go into some stress; you don't want to over- 

On a hillside, drip irrigation is about the only 
practical way of irrigation; because of the contours and all 
that, overheads don't really work, and of course flood 
irrigation wouldn't work. In Carneros, in theory overhead 
would work, but the water requirements of overhead are five, 
six, seven times as much as drip, and we don't have much water 
in Carneros. You really need to conserve on water, and of 
course drip really does that. Plus the beauty of drip 
irrigation is that it puts the water where you want it; it 
doesn't create extra humidity, so you don't have the same 
mildew and insect problems and that kind of thing. It's a lot 
more efficient, but it also puts it where you want it. 
Really, you can control everything so much better with drip 

For young vineyards, it's like night and day. If you 
start a brand-new vineyard, even in mid Napa Valley here, 
where you've got rich soils and so forth, and you say, "I'll 
just sort of hand water, or I won't water," it's going to take 
you at least a year or two years more to bring that vineyard 
into production. Whereas with drip it would really save you 
at least a year. 

Hicke : How did you learn about it? 

Wright: I just got fascinated. I guess I was at some agricultural 

thing that had nothing to do with vineyards. I think it was 
related to orchards or orange groves or something like that, 
and I saw this thing. It was like, "Wow, this is really 
interesting!" The original company was down in San Diego that 
brought the Israeli technology here; basically it was an 
Israeli invention. Of course, it's gone through enormous 
improvements in terms of the economics of the performance and 
all that. 

Hicke: Do you recall the name of chat company? 

Wright: Dripeze was the name of it. It just came into my mind. Those 

original emitters, which I bought in '70 or '71, still work. 

Everybody thought they were going to get clogged up in a 
matter of four or five years . 


Hicke: What are they made out of? 

Wright: Those I think were ejection-molded out of polypropylene, 

attached to polyethylene tubing. The tubings held up, too, 
for twenty years. 

Hicke: Were other growers getting into this? 

Wright: They were starting, yes. It was all about the same time, but 
I think I was one of the first to have a drip system. 

Hicke: You installed those in '71? 

Wright: Yes. I think even today, in going to other projects, it seems 
to me that with all the water that's used in the Central 
Valley, if somebody at some time or even now would come up 
with a plan that would really motivate growers to use drip 
irrigation rather than flood and overhead, lots of acre feet 
of water could be saved. But that's another issue. 

Hicke: Yes, that's a big part of what drip irrigation is about from 
the standpoint of the rest of the state. You didn't have any 
irrigation system before you put this in, right? 

Wright: No. What people did in those days, particularly if they were 
in the hills, you'd go by with a water trailer on the tractor, 
and by hand- -oh, it was really a pain. It wasn't very 
effective; it was very labor-intensive, and not nearly as 
precise as drip. As I say, without drip irrigation, some of 
these hillside vineyards and Carneros vineyards just wouldn't 
exist because the economics wouldn't be there. So it has 
really revolutionized that and in turn has opened up 
viticultural sites that have tremendous quality that wouldn't 
have been opened up. 

Hicke: Such as? 

Wright: I just think that hillsides do produce wines of greater 

elegance than vines grown in very rich alluvial soils like 
much of the Napa Valley itself. And we see that at Chandon. 
Without a doubt, year in and year out our best Char donnay- -and 
this is for sparkling wine, of course- -comes from our Mt. 
Veeder property. It just has more elegance. The Chardonnays 
that we grow in Carneros have much fruitier character, which 
for us is a bit of a problem for sparkling wine, because it's 
a little too fruity, whereas the mountain grapes don't show 
that at all. In fact, mountain Chardonnay as a table wine, 
when it's young and hasn't had much bottle -aging, to most 


people isn't as attractive as, say, a Carneros Chardonnay, 
which has all that fruity content to it. 

But when the vines age , the mountain Chardonnay that is 
five or six years old really has an elegance that's very, very 
intriguing. It's beautiful. 

Hicke: Do you associate elegance with dryness and aging 
characteristics? Can I pin you down on that? 

Wright: I think I associate it with enough fruit to have flavor, but 
not over-fruitiness; you're not bowled over from the 
fruitiness. Maybe elegance is the wrong word. 

Hicke: It's a good word, but it's a little hard to pin down. 

Wright: It's more subtle; let's put it that way. You're not bowled 
over by the fruit. It's there, but it's laid back, and 
because it is laid back other elements come into play as well, 
so it's more subtle and more complex. That's been my own 
experience. I don't know about others. I do think there is 
something to be said for qualities you get with shallower 
soils and drainage. I think in mountainside vineyards it's 
mainly a question of shallow soils plus drainage. I think in 
the Carneros area it's a combination of the cooler climate 
plus shallow soils that produce a different sort of grape, a 
different wine from the same grape variety. The number of 
acres planted in Carneros and on the hillsides- -although the 
hillsides are still pretty small- -wouldn' t be there without 
drip irrigation. It just wouldn't have been economic. 

Of course, what it does to land values is pretty 
amazing, too. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Hicke: In the discussion about soil versus climate as the most 
important factor, where do you stand? 

Wright: I am really honestly convinced that it's totally synergistic; 
it's not one or the other. They're both working. Therefore, 
if you say, "Champagne has chalk soil; Champagne is a 
wonderful wine. Therefore, to make a wine like Champagne you 
should look for chalk soil," doesn't make any sense, because 
the chalk in Champagne works because of the climate. The 
climate is very severe in the Champagne region, very cold and 
rather rainy, and the chalk is like a sponge and is taking all 
that down. The chalk is acting not only in its mineral sense 
but is creating a climate; so it's a very synergistic 


relationship. Chalk soil here wouldn't necessarily be 
beneficial, because we don't have the same conditions of 
climate. And there are other examples. 

The people who are totally concerned about terroLr or 
soil, if I were to be a little cynical- -certainly 
mezzoclimates can be if not duplicated rather closely 
simulated. Let's say there are other places in the world that 
have climates virtually identical to Bordeaux- -some parts of 
California, some parts of Australia, et cetera. It's to one's 
advantage, if one were in the lead, like if you were a French 
appellation committee, to say it's really soil, because soil 
is really urtduplicable, it's so unique. You can get this 
wonderful taste, and the soil is what makes the best. 

Wright: Therefore, by making it virtually unique, or making it seem 
unique, you can command a higher price for your grapes. 
That's really what a lot of that is all about. Some people 
think that the appellation contr61ee rules were made by some 
sort of generous group of people who decided that the consumer 
deserves some guaranteed quality, but that had nothing to do 
with it. The appellation contrdlee laws were set up to 
restrict the planting of grapes in order to keep the prices 
up. It's just as simple as that. 

Arthur D. Little: Investigating a Project in Brazil 

Hicke : Let's get back to your work for Arthur D. Little in San 

Francisco. When you came out here were you still working with 

Wright: Yes. I came out, and there wasn't any real obvious client 

base out here, although there was a forest products industry, 
so actually there was some base there. I guess in a sense it 
was a somewhat risky move, because I pretty much had my own 
quasi specialty and no real resources around me to speak of. 
But that didn't bother me, because I was really interested in 
growing grapes . 

Hicke: You just had to support your habit. 


Wright: That's right. Shortly after I got to San Francisco a client, 
International Paper Company, which was one of the few American 
companies that 1 did work for in Europe, had reorganized 
itself, having been "McKinsied, " we called it- -a consulting 
company called McKinsey did a lot of reorganization work 
(Arthur D. Little in those days didn't do much of that; we 
were more technology-based) - -and they decided that they should 
become internationalized. Even though their name was 
International Paper, it started originally because they had 
newsprint mills up in Canada. 

So they bought a couple of companies in Europe, and then 
they formed a whole international division on it's own and 
started to look for opportunities to grow internationally. 
That was some of the work I did for them in Europe; they were 
looking for a couple of acquisitions, so I got that work. 

They tracked me down here in San Francisco, and they 
wanted to look at South America. I was quite flattered that 
they really wanted me to be the project leader, even though I 
wasn't geographically ideally located for that. 

Hicke: Where was their headquarters? 
Wright: They were in New York. 

I started work there, and it quickly boiled down- -we 
took a quick look at Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, and wound 
up with Brazil as being the most interesting to start. So I 
started traveling a lot to Brazil, pursuing this project. The 
project got kind of dragged out, because they kept changing 
what they wanted to do. Well, actually the way they wanted to 
enter Brazil was in a very low investment and low profile, but 
there was no opportunity. We started there, and we worked our 
way back. 

About a year and a half or close to two years later--! 
wasn't working full time but sort of off and on- -we got all 
the way to reforestation as the way to approach Brazil in 
terms of the pulp paper and packaging industries. It started 
out in terms of printing paper for packaging materials, and 
that was a low investment, but everybody was in it; there 
wasn't much opportunity. 

We started following the whole chain backwards. Because 
of Brazil's economic structure, et cetera, low-capital 
investments were more attractive and easier than high-capital 

investments. Yet the need was for industries that needed 
high-capital investment, and that certainly is the pulp and 
paper industry, so in terms of an opportunity, that's where it 
was. But even going in and, say, producing pulp, in order to 
produce pulp you had to have the trees , and the trees were not 
there in all that great an abundance. There was a tremendous 
amount of trees up in the Amazon, but that's a whole other 
different problem. 

It just so happened that at that time the Brazilian 
government had these fantastic tax incentives to go in for 
reforestation, and eucalyptus grows incredibly there; you can 
take your first cut of eucalyptus in six years. So we finally 
wound up recommending that they go into forest management and 
use other companies' tax money to plant the trees. Once those 
trees started growing, then they could put up a pulp mill with 
some other investors and all that. 

It was great; it was just wonderful! Except that by the 
time we finished the study there had been a total upheaval in 
the top management of IP [laughs]; they had thrown out the old 
president, they'd gotten in a new one, and everything had 
changed. So they never pursued that, but another company did 
later on with great success. 

It was a lot of fun. It was a very interesting project, 
because, among other things, I really had a very distorted 
view of South America and what it was like. Working in Brazil 
and working with a lot of Brazilians --in fact, I did spend 
some other time down there teaching in Belo Horizonte as a 
part of the contract, teaching engineers and economists how to 
do project management. I guess it's fair to say I fell in 
love with the country. It's a very dynamic, interesting 

A Study of the Wine Industry. 1970 

Wright: So that was fun. The only problem is that it kept me out of 
the mainstream of activities in San Francisco, and when that 
project was finally over --and I had done a couple of others -- 
and I got back sort of full time in the San Francisco office, 
I really didn't have much work to do. As a consultant this 
kind of bothers you. It doesn't affect your pay, but you know 
that you want to be billable; that was my role in life. So I 




Hicke : 

decided to do a multi-client study of the wine industry, 
because that was really my hobby. This was around mid- 1970, 
and it was pretty obvious that wine was changing, that there 
was a definite shift over to table wine from fortified wines, 
wine consumption was increasing in the table wine category, 
and situations like that. 

I managed to design an outline of a study and a proposal 
and managed to get enough clients; I think there were about 
six clients to support the study, and we went ahead with the 
study, which was called Wine America. 

Who were the clients that supported it? 

I'm trying to remember. I guess it's not a secret anymore. 
Robert Mondavi was one; H.J. Heinz ; Philip Morris; Schlitz; 
Coca-Cola Bottling company of New York, which at that time 
owned Mogen David [winery] and Tribuno [vermouth] , which is 
now owned by The Wine Group ; and Quaker Oats . The larger food 
companies were saying, "Let's take a look at this to see if 
it's for us . " 

You've got a couple of wineries, a cigarette company, a beer-- 

Well, Philip Morris in those days was diversifying; they were 
in the beer business already. But, yes, it was larger 
companies who figured they'd better have a look at this. 

The findings of that study were that we felt that what 
we called the premium- -in those days we kind of broke up the 
wine into premium, standard, and nontraditional . The 
nontraditional wines were Cold Duck and Boone's Farm Apple; 
they were called pop wines at that time. They were the 
booming ones as well as the premium, both premium California 
and imported wines , but not moving nearly to the same extent 
as the pop wines were. 

And in between were the standards? 

And the standards; they were fairly steady. Even in those 
days they were fairly steady, even in the table wine category. 
Later the white jug wine started to grow, but at that point it 
wasn't growing all that much. 

Hicke: What was in the standard category? 


Wright: Oh, hearty burgundy, Carlo Rossi, genericwe call them jug 
vines today, but in those days 1 guess there were a fair 
number in half gallons, et cetera, but a lot were in bottles. 

Hicke : How did you do the research? 

Wright: There were three parts to the study. One was to assess the 
market, and some of that was looking at numbers, and some of 
it was talking to the trade- -retailers , restaurateurs, et 
cetera, and to the wine folks themselves. 

Hicke: Somebody like Darrell Corti? 

Wright: Yes. I don't remember if I talked to Darrell specifically, 
but sure. Another part we did, we commissioned an outside 
consumer research corporation called Family Opinion, Inc.- -I 
believe they were called that in those days. They have, you 
know, panels of eight thousand. Basically we did some 
consumer research on wine buying and consumption behavior. We 
did a first screen of about eight thousand households, and 
then got down to a couple thousand households in a longer 

Hicke: In California? 

Wright: Oh, no, throughout the country. Then there was a third part, 
what we called the economics. One whole part of the study was 
examining the cost of developing vineyards. We had actual 
cost models, and I think we were one of the first to do those. 
It was just about the time that computers were starting to be 
able to do some of this stuff at a reasonable cost. Of 
course, the desktop computer wasn't even around then, but 
there were time-share terminals. We had a pretty sharp guy at 
the Arthur D. Little office in San Francisco who was pretty 
good at this stuff, so he chunked out a whole lot of financial 
models . 

Hicke: Again, was this nationwide? 

Wright: We were really looking at establishing a winery in California. 
Then we had different kinds: we had a standard winery, a 
nontraditional winery, a premium winery, and in each case 
different levels in production and sales and so forth. Our 
final conclusions were --and this was by '71, based maybe on 
'69 and '70 data; I think '70 was our last data- -that the 
growth prospects for the premium table wine sector were both 
good and rather predictable; that the standard wine business 


was maybe on the order of 3 or 4 percent a year. Not as much. 
The other, we thought, was 15 to 20 percent over the 
subsequent five years, say. 

And that the nontraditional business, or the pop wine 
business, was completely unpredictable. Even though every 
indication at that point was that these wines were going up 
and up and up, there was Just enough feeling, about as 
intuitive as anything else, that they really weren't going to 
last. We were correct in that, because they really took a 
nose dive shortly thereafter. In those days, out of eleven 
million cases of sparkling wine, seven or eight million were 
Cold Duck. 

Hicke: So sparkling wine was something you looked at? 

Wright: Looked at, but it wasn't the focus of the study. Partly it 
wasn't a focus because once you got out of Cold Duck there 
wasn't much. So really Cold Duck was part of the 
nontraditional segment. No, sparkling wine wasn't a big issue 
in that study. 

I guess it turned out that our projections of growth 
were pretty much correct quite accurate, actually. I think 
where we made a mistake was that we felt that because of the 
capital investment involved, new entries into the market would 
not be that prevalent. What we totally missed was the romance 
factor of people getting into the business despite the heavy, 
up -front investment, that there are just enough people out 
there, some individuals and some companies, who have talked 
themselves into getting into the business because of, in many 
cases, what I think is the romance factor. It's a great 
business, you know. It's got a lot of romance to it. It is! 
It's a fun business. 

Hicke: That's interesting, because you essentially got into it 
because you liked it. 

Wright: [laughs] I know. Yes, I was one of the guilty ones. 

Hicke: It's interesting that you didn't realize there were that many 
others like you. 

Wright: I must say that we advised our clients- -basically the ones who 
were in the business, like Mondavi as I recall, our main 
recommendation to them was to develop more vineyards, because 
we thought vineyards were going to get in short supply. For a 


while we were incorrect, but then we became correct, so I 
think generally we gave them fairly good advice. 

Hicke: Is that why Mondavi was in it- -to see what the projections 
were for his own growers? 

Wright: I think so. Yes, I think Bob's main interest was- -I don't 

know; I should ask him one of these days. I kind of suspect 
that was about the time he had taken on some new partners- -the 
Sick's Rainier [Brewing] Company. 1 think they wanted some 
outside opinion about this business. Essentially our 
conclusions were that "If you are in the business today, 
particularly if you are in the upper end of the business" -- 
which Mondavi was- -"it's got a lot of future to it. It's 
going to require a lot of money, but it's a good business to 
be in competitively." I'd say the only surprise in that --and 
I don't know to what extent it has really hurt Mondavi; I 
don't think it has- -is that today there are a good many more 
competitors in the same price range as Mondavi than I would 
have ever believed in those days; just because of the 
economics I felt they wouldn't do that. 

Those companies who were not in the business, we 
basically advised not to get in because we didn't think the 
economics of starting from scratch would make a lot of sense. 
On the other hand, there were many opportunities. If they 
found a winery or two that were large enough to be interesting 
to these large companies, then an acquisition might not be a 
bad idea. 

Hicke: So not to really start from scratch, but if they could go in 
and acquire a going concern it would be okay? 

Wright: Yes. 

Hicke: Did you also work with Lou [Louis R. ] Gomberg? 

Wright: Very much, yes. In fact, Lou worked on that study with me as 
an outside consultant. Oh, yes, I forgot about Lou; I 
shouldn't have done that. Lou did quite a bit of work with 

Hicke: What types of things did he do? 

Wright: He dug up a lot of numbers because he had access to them, and 
of course he'd been very active in negotiating and buying and 
selling wineries, so he had some input on that. That's right, 


Lou was really a member of the team. A great guy. 
enjoyed my friendship with Lou and his wife. 

Hicke: Did you come out with a one-volume report? 

I always 

Wright: Well, three volumes; they were pretty big. [laughter] So 
what do you want for $20,000? Of course, $20,000 in those 
days was a lot of money. 

That report was printed in about March of '72, and just 
about that time I got a call from Paris. Having done the 
study, it's a classic consultant situation: you become an 
expert by doing something, right? Educate yourself on your 
clients' money [laughs]. I'm being a little cynical. But by 
having been the project leader for this, then I was recognized 
within Arthur D. Little, at least, as being the wine industry 
expert. I guess, in all fairness, I probably deserved it. 

I got a call from Paris from Michel d'Halluin, who was 
the manager of the Arthur D. Little office there. Michel I 
had known because of my work in Brussels, and he said that 
Arthur D. Little had been engaged by the Banque Nationale de 
Paris, the BNP, the biggest bank in France, to look at 
investment areas of interest for French companies. They 
decided to structure this project by going to an input-output 
computer model. Lo and behold, the wine industry was one of 
the industries that the input -output model had preliminarily 
tagged as potentially being of interest to a French company. 
I said, "I don't think you need a computer input-output model 
to determine that, but what the hell, that's all right. So 
what do you want from me?" 

He said, "Well, I'd like you to write a little report 
on--." He says [with French accent], "Now, John, only three 
days of your time, because I do not have a very big budget." 
I said, "For $20,000 you can buy the whole thing." "No, no, 
John, you must remember our old friendship." I said, "All 
right, Michel, I guess in good conscience I can write a very 
general overview without prejudicing the clients who paid good 
money for this. I can't get into the details, because that 
would not be ethical, but I feel confidant that I can write an 
overview generally." I wrote a fairly general overview of the 
situation as I saw it. 

At that time I was pretty heavily engaged in a project 
for one of the Unilever companies in Europe. They had a 
packaging division, several companies located in many 


different countries of Europe that produced packaging 
materials. The whole project was really what were they going 
to do with these companies in the future in terms of direction 
and organization and all that? It was a fun study. 


Exploring the Possibilities 

Wright: So I was going over to Europe quite frequently. That July, on 
my trip over, Michel called and said, "Look, while you're here 
I've set up appointments in Paris with some potential 
investors." The reason the BNP, by the way, had commissioned 
the study was that they were developing branch banking 
facilities in the U.S. They later bought the Bank of the West 
here in California. There is a BNP bureau here in San 
Francisco as well, but they really finally enlarged by buying 
the Bank of the West. They figured that if they were going to 
have these operations in the state- -branch banking; I guess 
that's the right word- -if French companies were there, they'd 
naturally be attracted to the BNP as a primary lender. 

In July they set me up with meetings, and there were BNP 
people there. I guess there were two or three meetings. One 
was with a fellow named Guy de la Serre, who was then and 
still is secretary general of Moet-Hennessy . Guy actually is 
from the family Mercier, which is a company that is part of 
the Moet [Hennessy Louis Vuitton] group. I spent a couple of 
hours with Guy going over what I'd written and answering his 
questions . 

-Then I met with two other groups. I met with Pernod 
Ricard, the pastis people. Pernod Ricard had just merged, and 
they were looking to expand their activities and possibly get 
into the wine business. They subsequently bought Austin- 
Nichols in this country, which is really the bourbon business 
more than the wine, although they had some wines. 


Then I met with a company called the Salin du Midi. 
They're a very fascinating company. Their original primary 
business was solar salt down in the Mediterranean area at the 
mouth of the Rhone River. 

Hicke: Solar salt? 

Wright: Yes, like that stuff that we make --dried salt. They still do 
that, but the amount of land that they own- -not where they 
were evaporating the salt, because it would be too salty, but 
somehow they wound up owning thousands of hectares of land. 
This was way, way back. That land is almost pure sand, and 
when the phylloxera hit Europe, the phylloxera bug doesn't 
exist very well in sand, so they were able to plant vines on 
this soil without having to graft them, and they developed a 
huge wine business; they have been referred to as the Gallo of 
France. Their brand name is Listel, and they make very 
acceptable wine at that price level and have very good 
technology. So they were somewhat interested, too. 

Well, as it turned out, of the three people, the one who 
was really interested enough to make the next step was Moet- 
Hennessy. I don't think I met Alain then. I got word from 
Michel later- -I believe it was that August- -that two 
executives from Moet-Hennessy, Alain Chevalier- -who didn't 
have a title, but essentially he was president of Moet- 
Hennessy and the holding company; I think he was called 
general administrator, or admLnistrateur general- -and Bertrand 
Mure, who was the managing director of Moet & Chandon, the 
Champagne group, were coming over in August to visit me in San 

I brought them up to the Napa Valley and showed them 
around. I remember one night they stayed at Silverado, and 
Alain and I were taking a little stroll around the golf 
course. He said, "I'm really interested in doing something. 
I think it's time we started a California venture." He 
described some of the reasons why they were interested, which 
I'll get to in a minute. He said, "No matter what the market 
is--" I told him up front that I had studied the market. I 
said, "The sparkling wine market at this point is a little bit 
of champagne here, some sparkling wine here, and Cold Duck is 
the main thing. I do believe there's an opportunity for 
growth in this business if somebody comes in with the right 
product at the right price and so forth, but we're starting 
with a small market." The whole methode champenoLse business 
at that time, which was largely Korbel [F. Korbel & Bros. 



winery], Kornell [Cellars], was only, I think, a hundred 
thousand cases. We knew pretty much that we were going to 
have to start with a capacity of about a hundred thousand to 
make it interesting. 

So I said, "The market is not there, but I think it can 
be developed." He said, "Fine." He said, "Besides, for me 
the really important thing is to get the right person to run 
it," and he said, "I think that could be difficult." I said, 
"Geez, with Moet & Chandon behind it, there 'd be 150 totally 
qualified people lined up to get the job." [laughs] I didn't 
know he was testing me; he was very subtle. 

You were just having your conversation about looking for 
someone to head up this new winery. 

Wright: Right. At that point it was left that on my next trip to 

Europe, I should come by for a further conference, not only 
with Alain and Bertrand but with the bank. It was just left 
somewhat loose, but, "We'll work it out when you come over 
next." I said fine. 

Just about this time, which would have been August of 
'72, I had kind of decided that I was so intrigued with the 
winery business, and really grape growing more, I think, that 
if I resigned from ADL I could probably stillbecause they do 
use a lot of outside consultants if you've got a track record 
for special things- -figure on maybe getting work from Arthur 
D. Little half time or even less, and even with that I 
probably wouldn't starve to death. 

Further Conferences With the French 

Wright: I had already informed ADL then, in August, that I was going 
to resign, but that I'd complete the Unilever work, which was 
fine with them. That happened, and then it must have been a 
week or two later that I got a call from Michel D'Halluin 
again from Paris. He said, "Look, when are you coming over 
for Unilever?" I think it was October or something, and he 
said, "Well, Moet wants to see you, and we have to have the 
bank there," and blah, blah, blah. I said, "Look, I have 
officially resigned from Arthur D. Little. If you want to pay 

me for a day or two, I'd be delighted to .do that." He said, 
"Oh, yes, yes, no problem." So I said, "Fine." 

I came over, and I remember I called Michel from 
Brussels; he was in Paris. I said, "Is everything set up?" 
[quickly] "Oh, yes, yes," and he was very, very excited. 
"Mr. Chevalier has invited you to his house that evening." I 
said, "Oh, that's nice." "Well, it's more than nice; it's 
very important." You know, he was giving me this- -I didn't 
think it was such a big deal. 

I went down [to Paris] Thursday night, and on Friday we 
met officially at the Moet-Hennessy headquarters in Paris and 
went through the whole thing again about the wine business and 
where it was going and so on. 

Hicke: Where is their headquarters? 

Wright: It's changed now. It used to be at the Rue Tremoille, but 
shortly thereafter it moved to Avenue Hoche. 

Alain was rather short, curt, and somewhat agitated by 
the meeting. You could see he was just impatient, I guess is 
the best word. He didn't quite cut the meeting short, but it 
felt a little bit like it was shortened. We broke up, and he 
said, "I'll see you tonight." I said, "Wonderful." I was 
walking out with Michel, and he says, "Now, look, when you go 
to his house tonight, I'm sure he's going to want you to do 
some more work. I'd just like some assurance from you that 
Arthur D. Little will be involved." I said, "Well, of course. 
Anything I would do as an individual consultant would only be 
through Arthur D. Little, because obviously he made the first 
contact, and I wouldn't think of doing anything other than 
that." Then I said, "But I can't imagine that that's going to 
happen . " 

"Oh, yes, it is. I guarantee you, you'll have a nice 
dinner, and after dinner he'll take you into another room and 
talk about doing some more work." I said, "All right, Michel, 
maybe you're right." And, sure enough, that's exactly what 
happened. We had a delightful dinner with Alain Chevalier, 
his wife, and two other couples who were friends. Actually, 
one was the brother of John Haskell from Dillon, Read [& Co., 
Inc.]; I don't think I'd met John then. 

After dinner was over and everybody had gone, Alain 
asked me to stay around for a while. We went into another 


room and sat down, and he said that he wanted me to- -I guess 
even that morning he had said he wanted me to go up to pernay 
to meet Robert- Jean de Vogue, who was the chairman still of 
Moet-Hennessy, and to take a look around. I said, "Fine," so 
that had already been decided. But essentially that evening 
he said, "I think we'd like to pursue this further. What 
would your involvement be?" I said, "I can promise you total 
involvement in terms of being a project leader. I might need 
some other help, which would come from Arthur D. Little. I'd 
only ask that you write the contract with Arthur D. Little and 
not with me personally." He said, "That's no problem. But I 
want you to see Bob de Vogue first, before anything is 
decided." I said, "Fine." 

I went up to Epernay the next day, and they put me up at 
the Chateau de Saran, which was quite impressive and 
luxurious. I've never stayed there again. [laughter] As an 
employee, you see, I didn't, but then I was given the full 
treatment. That's all right; I've eaten there a few times, 
and my daughter has been there a couple of times. 

I met with Bob, who was this incredible- -he was a very 
short man, but he looked a little like Maurice Chevalier. He 
sort of had an air about him. He'd wear a hat a little cocked 
like Maurice Chevalier. He actually had graduated from 
St. Cyr, the military academy, so he was very military in his 
bearing always, very elegant; a true nobleman, which he was. 
The Vogue family is very, very old. In France they have a 
saying that there's the nobility of the sword and the nobility 
of the robe, and he was definitely the nobility of the sword, 
the family going back to the Knights -Templar and all that, 
whereas some of the newer nobility were only made ones by 
doing favors for Louis XIV, Louis XIII, et cetera. 

In fact Bob, even though his education and his first 
career were military, really got into the champagne business 
because the lady he married was a member of the Moet family, 
and somewhat distant, too. Well, she was a member, yes, but 
it's a little complicated, because her name wasn't Moet or 
Chandbn. I've forgotten what her maiden name was. She's 
still alive, Ghislaine. After they got married they brought 
him in, and I guess in a matter of a very short period of time 
he became the dominant leader of Moet [snap, snap, snap], just 
like that- -a fantastic, great sense of leadership. 

And he was a bit of a terror; he didn't suffer fools 
very much, I guess. I remember he told me one time, "You 


know, when I came into the business, all the other 
champenoLses wanted to do was leave the bottles in their 
cellar because they felt very rich with all the bottles in 
their cellar. Moi , je suis un marchand du vin--I'm a wine 
merchant. I decided you ought to sell them to get rich!" So 
he did. He was one of the first people who had really 
aggressively gone out and actually tried to capture market 
share. He went into the U.K. [United Kingdom]. At that point 
Moet was hardly anything and very soon became the number -one 
brand, and he did that in other markets. So he really had a 
sense, as he said, of being a "marchand du vin." 

But he was also very, very supportive of technology, 
almost to a fault. He really believed that technology made 
better wine, and he was the first person to have a truly 
accredited enologist, as opposed to a kind of "learn on the 
job" winemaker. Actually, he separated enology from the chef 
du cave anyway. Moet was an innovator in a lot of technology. 
The only problem was , when they did any sort of consumer 
research they realized that they had to play this down, 
because consumers looked upon technology as anti-quality in 
some ways . 

Hicke: Like it's machine made or something? 

Wright: Yes, exactly. But he was very supportive of technology, as 

well as being really savvy in marketing and very aggressive in 
sales and marketing. 

Hicke: He had been to California, hadn't he? 

Wright: Yes, at least once, and I'm sure more than that. His son, 
[Count] Ghislaine [de Vogue], tells me that in '69 he and 
"papa" were here at a wine WSWA (Wine and Spirits Wholesalers 
of America) meeting in San Francisco. They were looking for 
the hospitality suite of our then agent for both Moet and 
Hennessy, Schieffelin & Company, and they wandered into the 
wrong suite, which happened to be the Wine Institute that was 
having a tasting as well. Ghislain said, "I said to Papa, 
'Papa, we must go over to Schieffelin.' He said, 'No, I want 
to stay here and taste some of these wines. I'm very 
curious.'" So he spent the next three hours there, both 
tasting and pontificating, I guess, telling people what he 
thought of the wines. He was very fascinated, particularly 
with the Cabernets. So he sort of had implanted in the back 
of his mind that California was an up-and-coming place to make 


world-class wines. He was that kind of a person; he was 
really quite broad minded in global outlook. 

So I arrived on the scene and was ushered into his 
office. 1 sat down, and 1 was somewhat curious as to what 
language we were going to speak, but he spoke beautiful 
English, which certainly helped, although I could speak a 
little bit of French. I speak more today, but at that point I 
spoke, well, not bad French, I guess. We chatted, and Bob, 
after maybe forty- five minutes or so, said, "Well, I've always 
wanted to do something in California. I think the time is 
right, but the main thing is to get the right person, and I 
want you to be chairman of the company." I said, "What?" 
"Well, chairman, president, or whatever you call it." I said, 
"I'm very flattered." I didn't say he had made me an offer I 
couldn't refuse, but I almost did. I said, "That would be 
wonderful , but I think you ought to take a certain amount of 
time to study the situation, maybe principally to see whether 
we should start from scratch, or whether we should buy an 
existing company and what the implications of that would be-- 
sort of a feasibility study." I said I'd like to do that 
under contract with Arthur D. Little, if that was all right. 
"Oh, that's no problem. Go right ahead. Fine, fine." 

M. Poirier Tastes California Vines 

Wright: With that, he said, "Now I want you to meet Monsieur [Renaud] 
Poirier, because he will be the one to finally determine 
whether or not we go to California." I said, "Oh, really?" 
He said, "Yes." So I got ushered out. I didn't know who 
Poirier was from whatever. Going through all the buildings at 
Moet, into the winery and upstairs in the winery, in the 
cuv^rie, which is the tank room, was the lab. I got ushered 
into the lab, and this rather tall fellowwell, Renaud was 
about ready to retire, so he was about sixty -two or -three 
then, with gray hair, not very much hair, with a lab coat on. 
I sat down, and he proceeded to talk to me only in French 
[laughs]. I found out he could speak English. He wrote 
beautiful English, but he would never speak English to me. 
He's one of those characters, you know- -sort of one-upmanship. 

He asked me a lot of questions about my family life and 
all that. Then he said, [forcefully] "Okay, I'm coming over 
in December, and I want to taste wines. I don't want to taste 


any sparkling wine, because I know it's all inbuvable-- 
undrinkable. 1 only want to taste wines that were made this 
year that are still fresh from this vintage." This was 
October, and I said, "It's not going to be terribly easy." 
"Well, that's what I want to do." I said, "Okay, I'll start 
talking to some wine people there to see if I can get 
something set up." 

He said, "And I want any number of different cepages-- 
varieties- -because I don't believe that just because we use 
Chardonnay and Pinot noir in champagne, it will work in 
California. It's too hot a climate; it won't work. It won't 
work, so we've got to look at all these others," and then he 
goes on this long speech. He was a real kick. He said, "I'm 
a very ill person. I've been diagnosed, and I have a very 
serious disease. I don't expect to last for a year." I'm 
looking at him like this [shows facial expression]. He's 
still alive. [laughter] He said, "I'm bringing my nurse with 
me." I said, [whispering] "All right, fine." 

It turns out his nurse, Francoise, is his wife as well, 
and a delightful, lovely lady for whom he had literally 
stormed a convent, where her father had put her to keep her 
away from him, and dragged her out of the convent, and they 
got married. It's quite a story. I think he really did think 
he was very ill. He had had an operation, but it was 
obviously very successful. 

He laid it out: "I want a place where there are no 
extraneous smells, and for every wine I taste, I want a 
complete chemical analysis before I taste it, in front." This 
is the first person, at least from Champagne, that I have ever 
known who wants to taste with a technical analysis in front of 

He was the key person who was going to come over and 
say, "Can we make really world-class wine here or can't we? 
And where should we be?" I came back and busily went around 
and got tremendous cooperation from Louis Martini, Bob 
Mondavi, Bob Travers at Mayacamas , Mirassou, Christian 
Brothers, and a lot of people like that. I got samples of 
wine from that year. I told them what I was doing, and there 
wasn't any problem. I had a whole bunch of samples there, and 
I had all the chemical analyses done by Scott Labs. 

Hicke: Can I interrupt and ask why he wanted the chemical analysis? 
To check the acidity? 


Wright: I don't know. That's just the way he tasted. [laughs] pH, 
acidity, et cetera. 

Hicke: He wanted to know all that at the time that he was tasting it? 

Wright: I think Renaud, who was a very key figure, was so proud, I 
guess- -he was the first true enologist in Champagne, with 
proper scientific background, although his father was the chef 
du cave at Pommery. Renaud followed his father in that job, 
but he always fought with the Prince of Polignac, who used to 
own Pommery [& Greno]--the Polignac family. Apparently every 
two months he'd go in and say, "I quit," and Guy de Polignac 
would say, "Oh, no, no, don't do that; don't do that," and 
bring him back. So one day I guess Guy de Polignac was so fed 
up that when Renaud said, "I quit," he said, "Fine. You're 

Within two days Bob de Vogue hired him, for two reasons: 
one, he had a really excellent reputation as a 
scientist/enologist ; and secondly, Bob de Vogu6 , because he 
was head of the resistance during the war- - [Joachim] von 
Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister, had been a sales 
manager for Pommery in Germany, so whether it was correct or 
not, there was a certain feeling that Pommery was a bit pro- 
German. Pommery was always kind of an enemy for Bob, so if he 
could get back at Pommery, he'd do it. So he hired Renaud for 
that reason, too. 

I got back and hustled around and got everything done, 
and Renaud and Francoise came that December. He tasted the 
wines and, as I said, wouldn't touch a glass of sparkling 
wine- -absolutely would not. He was really quite an 
interesting guy. He went through all the swirling and 
sniffing and spitting, and he wrote down his notes. What he 
found at that stage was that potentially Chardonnay and Pinot 
Noir might be a little more interesting than he thought, 
although actually I didn't have any real Pinot Noir; I had red 
Pinot Noir, but I didn't have any white. 

He felt there was a possibility of making a really high- 
quality wine. He felt, interestingly enough, that the 
mountain vineyards showed a certain subtlety and interest that 
some of the valley vineyards did not. And he felt that Napa 
Valley was more interesting than the Monterey area or Sonoma 
area. Now, was that very scientific? I don't know. 


Hicke: Did you have any of your own grapes? 
Wright: No, they weren't ready. 

So he gave his blessing, said yes, we could make some 
really fine wine here. 

Hicke: That's amazing, because it sounds as if he came with his mind 
made up . 

Wright: [laughs]. Even there, he said, "Yes," but he was still very, 
very skeptical, particularly about Chardonnay, and for good 
reason, considering what he had tasted, although I think there 
was one mountain Chardonnay he kind of liked. He said, "Fine, 
but we ought to focus primarily on Folle Blanche," and that 
was based on one tasting. Lou Martini then had a Folle 
Blanche white wine, and Renaud liked it because it was 
"neutral"- -not insipid neutral, but it wasn't too fruity. He 
also thought that Saint Emilion or Ugni blanc--he didn't taste 
any Ugni blanc, because there wasn't any around, or maybe 
there was onebut based upon, really, his experience in 
Argentina; he'd been down and set up things in Argentina he 
just kind of pre- guessed that Ugni blanc would be an 
interesting grape. 

His focus was being worried about too much fruitiness, 
too much gout du terroLr and this sort of thing, based upon 
his preconceived notion that even though some of these wines 
tasted pretty good, the climate was probably still too warm, 
in his mind. 

At any rate, he put his blessing on it, and we were on 
our way. At that point, in looking at the structure of the 
industry and who was doing what and what we could do, it 
became pretty obvious that buying a company didn't make any 
sense. Any company that could have been purchased with any 
sort of position in the sparkling wine business- -i.e. , Korbel, 
for example --would have required really a very high price-to- 
earnihgs ratio, simply because things were looking very good 
at that point. I never even inquired whether they were for 
sale. And once you've done that, you're still going to have 
to invest millions in order to bring the thing around to where 
you want it to be and to expand the production, so why try to 
undo what others have done? 


Starting UP. 1972 

Wright: It wasn't exactly a no-brain decision, but it didn't take very 
long to figure out that we ought to start by ourselves. So we 
made that decision. Renaud was over in December of '72, and 
by March 26, 1973, the company was officially formed. At that 
point I had already optioned some land up on Mt. Veeder next 
to where I lived because of the quality potential. It was 
also convenient, because my office was in my garage up there 
[laughs], so it worked out well. I was really fascinated with 
Carneros. That was just starting to come in, and I thought 
about the cool climate. 

Hicke: Did he taste any wines from there? 

Wright: Yes, but they were all red, red Pinot Noirs for the most part. 
I thought that was a really interesting area, and I guess I 
was somewhat romantic, too, in thinking that what were then 
lower-yield vines that had to struggle a little bit- -I did 
believe it. In those days we paid fifteen hundred dollars an 
acre when we first bought five hundred acres in Carneros. At 
that point, if you bought bare land, let's say, in the mid- 
Napa Valley- -Oakville , Yountville, Oak Knoll, or wherever--! 
would say the going price for bare land then was about eight 
thousand an acre. So it was a big difference in price. 

Hicke: Did you consider buying vineyards? 

Wright: Well, we did, but there weren't any for sale. There really 
weren't; there was nothing out there. Nothing out there in 
terms of varieties that we thought we'd know and climates that 
we'd like. But there was really very little available, and 



for very high prices. I mean, you've got to recognize that in 
that period of '69, '79, '71, although subsequently things 
vent downwards, people were getting a thousand dollars a ton 
for Cabernet and a thousand dollars a ton for Pinot noir and 
Chardonnay, and so on. On an inflation basis, that was a 
tremendous amount of money, particularly when you figured a 
vineyard cost then nine or ten thousand an acre; so if you got 
four or five tons to the acre, you were getting a really good 
deal if you got that kind of money. Therefore obviously 
people were asking for a good deal more than that per planted 
acre, if anything was available; but essentially nothing was 

I had already optioned some land in Carneros , and I 
optioned the land up on Mt. Veeder, waiting for the go-ahead: 
are we going to go or not? Well, we made the decision in 
February or so to go. Kilian Hennessy had just then become 
the chairman of the board; Bob had officially retired, 
although he subsequently came out for visits two or three 
times. Kilian came out, and we signed the papers in the 
lawyer's office in San Francisco to officially form the 

Was that Morrison & Foerster? John Austin? 
John Austin, right. 

A French Company in Napa Vallev 

Hicke: Let me back up and ask you a little bit about the implications 
of a French company starting a winery in the Napa Valley. 
First of all their risks, which you assessed very well. 

Wright: Yes, or perhaps more opportunities than risks. Interestingly 
enough, particularly in the de Vogue era, but even Alain 
Chevalier was of the same mold in many respects, they were 
much more focused on opportunities than they were on risks. 
The focus wasn't how to avoid risk or how to be risk free; the 
focus was, "Is there an opportunity here?" I didn't 
understand it at the time. I was, frankly, a little amazed. 
They never asked to see my study. 

Hicke: Oh, they didn't? 

Domaine Chandon 

Old press from France, 1991 

Tasting area, 1991 

Photographs by Carole Hicke 

Domains Chandon winery, visitors' entrance. 

Ancient French wine press in winery courtyard. 


Wright: No, they never even looked at a page of it. I think I would 
have had some moral misgivings about it, although by then the 
study was getting a little old, but they never even asked. 
I'm not saying the work I did was slipshod; it wasn't. But 
once Poirier came back and said, "Look, we can make good wine 
there," I think that was it. They were going to do it because 
they saw an opportunity. Why they saw an opportunity or were 
looking at it opportunistically was that at that point in 
time --and this was the fall of '72-- 

Wright: We're looking now at the fall of '72, when I met Bob de Vogue. 
The apparent demand for Champagne, in terms of their sales in 
'69, '70, '71, looked like an ever -increasing demand, 
particularly in the French market. Post-World War II, the 
French really discovered Champagne and were drinking 
tremendous quantities; their consumption really leaped up. 
Exports were less buoyant but still sound. 

So they were looking at a situation, in the fall of '72, 
where the harvest of '71 produced excellent quality but very 
little quantity in Champagne. The harvest of '70 was both 
relatively large in quantity and very good in quality. Right 
at this point- -this was October of '72, and the weather was 
foul; '72 was absolutely a hideous year in terms of quality- - 
they were looking at a more or less normal crop but a very, 
very low quality. So they were really sitting on an inventory 
which wasn't of the size that they usually felt comfortable 
with for the future. They were saying, "Here's the demand for 
Champagne running up this way; here's what our supply is. The 
appellation contrdlee laws say now we can only plant about 
1 percent or 2 percent a year." You see, they changed the 
law, which they do frequently, sometime in the mid- sixties to 
slow the planting down. 

"Here we are, Moet & Chandon, being the dominant 
producer by far, essentially being forced to restrict our 
growth in the future because of lack of grapes. So let's not 
only continue to export our product, but let's take our 
scientific knowledge- -art , if you will and experience and 
transfer them to other places in the world where the market 
looks attractive and where we can make quality wine that we're 
not ashamed to put our name on." This was the basic 
rationale, primarily formulated by Bob de Vogu6 and Alain 
Chevalier, both of whom were fundamentally strategic thinkers. 


Hicke: Was there some worry about France turning a little bit towards 

Wright: None whatsoever on their part. That came later, but it was 

never a motivation for Mot. It's been a motivation for other 
investments, but there was never any consideration of that 
whatsoever; it was purely, "This is a business opportunity. 
We're not trying to sock money away." Even the exchange 
rate- -they said, "We don't care about the exchange rate; that 
all evens out over time, so let's not make a big deal about 
it." No, it was really based on a business opportunity. 

Now, there was a good deal of concern about what the 
American reaction was going to be, or more specifically, "What 
is the reaction of the Napa community going to be towards a 
foreigner coming in and investing?" I said, "Gee, I can't 
believe it will be anything other than favorable, for several 
reasons. One, Moet coming into the Napa Valley is just a sign 
of approval, that in a sense you have arrived, because Mot's 
a very prestigious company. Unless people are totally 
xenophobic, they're not going to react negatively to that. 
Secondly, we're not buying anybody. We're not buying out a 
little old family and all this kind of thing, or even a 
corporate thing. We're contributing straight from the ground 
up, so nobody can accuse us of just doing something like, if 
you will, the Japanese and so forth are accused of --buying up 
companies . " 

Of course, the reason for a lot of their concern is that 
the French had historically been more xenophobic and 
mistrusting of foreign investment, particularly foreign 
purchase of high-quality wineries. In fact, it's virtually 
impossible to do that unless you are part of the European 

Hicke: They would feel uncomfortable about somebody coming into 

Wright: Oh, you bet your life. Now, legally, if it were a British or 
German company, a member of the EEC [European Economic 
Community], they couldn't do anything about it; the government 
can't do anything about it. But if it's a Japanese company, 
yes, the French government probably would not allow that. 

But we Americans are not like that, right? Or we 
weren't in those days. So I said I wouldn't worry about it. 
"Well, but we must." One of the first things they wanted to 


do was to have a reception for Napa Valley vintners and 
growers. I said, "Fine, we'll do that," and we went over to 
the Silverado Country Club and brought in numerous cases of 
Moet Champagne, because we had nothing ourselves that we had 
made. Bob de Vogue came over specifically for that, and with 
him was a fellow named Tex Bomba. Tex had just retired from 
Schieffelin & Company and was really--! don't think his 
official title was president, but he really ran Schieffelin 
and was a wonderful guy, very open minded and a very nice 

Both Tex and Bob at that point were about age 75 or 76. 
Tex came with Bob to accompany him to the party at Silverado, 
and all sorts of people showed up- -a great success. I 
remember that I got involved in talking to somebody, and Bob 
came right over to me and said, "John, you must stand with me 
at the front door. I want you to introduce me properly," and 
I said, "Yes, sir!." [laughs] That reception I think was 
quite successful in saying that we were maybe okay people, and 
in those days I never, ever felt any kind of community 
resistance, certainly not in the grape-growing or winemaking 
communities. There have been times when I felt that some of 
the politicians in the city or in the county have been a 
little prejudiced, but nothing of any real impact. 

Working tfith the Trefethens 

Wright: The other importance of that party was that among the invitees 
was the Trefethen family. Katie Trefethen, Gene Trefethen's 
wife, came with her sister, Barbara Eisley and her brother-in- 
law, Milt Eisley. Gene was on a trip. He was president of 
Kaiser [Aluminum & Chemical Company] , and he was over in Japan 
or Australia or somewhere. He was actually due back that 
evening, so he couldn't come to the party. Tex was always one 
to spot a very attractive lady and go and be very gentlemanly 
and gracious and so forth, so I think the minute that Katie 
walked into that room, Tex was probably right over talking to 

I met Katie; I knew the vineyard because I'd seen it, 
but I had yet to meet anybody from the Trefethen family. I 
might have met Tony Baldini, who is vineyard general manager. 
At any rate, I was familiar with the vineyard and its size and 
its quality. Tex brought me over and introduced me to Katie, 


and Katie said, "Why don't you all come for lunch tomorrow at 
the Villa Trefethen?" I said, "That would be a great idea," 
so Bob de Vogu6, Tex, and I went over there and met John 
Trefethen and Katie and Gene and had a wonderful lunch and a 
wonderful time . 

I started talking a little bit to John. He was starting 
to make some wine from some of his grapes , and he had some 
help from Tom Farrell, who was then with Inglenook. I said, 
"Gee, you grow a lot of Pinot noir, don't you?" "Well, we're 
in the process." I said, "You know, we'd maybe like some 
grapes , " and 1 sort of planted the seed and made an 
appointment to see John the next week. 

When I sat down with John, I realized that he had this 
building over there that used to be a winery that he wanted to 
get back into being a winery. It was one of the few sources 
of potentially significant quantities of grapes, and the 
problem then was to try to find grapes . 

Hicke: He wasn't making wine? 

Wright: No, not at that time. He had made a little bit at home. In 
fact, I remember, we tasted it. [laughs] No comments, John. 

I met with John perhaps a week later, and he told me, 
"We're in a situation where we think we want to sell about a 
third of our grapes to the co-op, because that's fairly 
dependable. We'd probably like to make wine out of a third, 
and then we'd like to find a home for the other third that we 
can be comfortable with." I said, "Here's a wonderful kind of 
mutual opportunity, because we're looking for grapes." What 
we wanted to do that year- -this was in '73- -was to vinify ten 
or twelve different varieties. This was Poirier's plan, see, 
because he wasn't convinced. We were going to try Riesling, 
Semillon, Pinot noir, Chardonnay, Colombard, Folle blanche, 
Ugni blanc, and you name it. The only way we had to do that 
at that point was to contract it out. We weren't really happy 
with doing that, because we wanted to press the product right 
and handle it correctly and all that. We had hoped that some 
of the wine would be useful enough to put away as reserve wine 
to blend with the next year's wine. 

This was June. I said to John, "We could probably, on a 
very hurried-up basis, get your building over there"- -which 
was dirt floor, nothing- -"into a functioning winery by crush. 
Because we pick grapes early, et cetera, and you're just 


starting anyway, we'd provide equipment, we'd provide the 
basic infrastructure going in; once we leave the winery you 
can 'find a way to pay us back on some basis. And we'd like to 
buy"- -I forget what it was, but it was a pretty substantial 
amount, certainly our major source of Pinot noir and 
Chardonnay, although we didn't buy everything we could have 
because we were still cautious about those varieties. 

I said, "We can make wine in your facility under our 
total control, and you, in turn, will have a winery built for 
you at that level." He said, "That sounds like a great idea," 
so literally in a matter of about a month and a half or two 
months--! think we started making wine at Trefethen on August 
28 that year. That was pretty exciting. 

Hicke: Did they already have it bonded? 

Wright: No, they had nothing. I guess they were in the process of 
getting it, but that wasn't a problem. A bigger problem is 
always with the county. The feds and the state aren't a 
problem; it's the county that's always a problem in trying to 
do anything innovative around here. Fortunately the building 
was up, and the kind of permits you needed to get were not as 
horrendous as they could have been. Today, hah! It would be 
totally impossible. The county just wouldn't get their act 
together in nearly enough time to get a winery put up in that 
order. This would never happen. 

But that was really fortunate, because it gave us a year 
up. It was a wonderful opportunity for us, and I think it was 
a good opportunity for Trefethen. They proceeded to make some 
damned good wine that year, and the year after- -the '74- -I 
think their Chardonnay won the French tasting. 

Hicke: I read somewhere that you were working upstairs, and they were 
working downstairs. 

Wright: [laughs] Yes. Well, from time to time- -I know both Janet and 
John were very thankful when we left [laughs], and rightfully 
so, because we were expanding all the time, and Trefethen 
actually expanded faster than they thought they were going to, 
so we started getting a little bit in each other's way. 

Hicke: You mean in following years? 

Wright: Yes, exactly. The last crush we did at Trefethen was '77, and 
even in '77 what we crushed- -pressed would be more accurate-- 


presses up here in Yountville, but we still had stuff in there 
in '77, and we got out, basically, in '77. Then they still 
had to build another building to meet their needs. 

Hicke: That was an amazing coincidence. 

Wright: Oh, it sure was, and thank God for that party. 

Choosing the Grape Varieties 

Hicke: What happened to these other varieties of grapes that you were 
going to try? 

Wright: Well, it was wonderful. We vinified all these varieties, and 
then Renaud came over that spring to taste what we called the 
base wines --the individual wines. I guess Philippe Coulon, 
who is now the technical director of Moe't & Chandon, came over 
during the harvest to help supervise. He's an excellent wine 
man, really an enologist. The rest of it was us, really. 

Hicke: Who was "us"? 

Wright: Me and a fellow named Kim Giles, who had just been the 

winemaker at Mt. Veeder Vineyards and left- -a kind of an 
acquaintance; I knew Kim, and I knew he made wine at Hanzell 
[Vineyard] and a couple of other places. Kim came on board, 
and that was about it, I guess. But Philippe came over, and 
they were very precise as to what they wanted. Of course, the 
equipment was all laid out for what they wanted. The tanks 
were American, et cetera, but the presses and other things 
were all basically dictated to us, and properly so, by Moe't as 
to what they wanted. 

Hicke: Were you acting as winemaker? 

Wright: Well, I was pulling hoses around, yes. Kim was the real 

winemaker, but, sure, I certainly worked the crush. I used to 
work the night shift; I did that for five years. That was a 
lot of fun; I enjoyed that They wouldn't let me be the 
winemaker; I'd screw it all up. I make wine at home still- - 
very, very good Cabernet and Pinot Noir, occasionally a 
Zinfandel port. 

Hicke: Does Renaud come and taste it? 

Hicke: Does Renaud come and taste it? 

Wright: No, he hasn't. Actually, I've been out of touch with him for 
probably five years. I hope he's doing all right. He retired 
after that; just at that point he was ready to retire. But he 
did come over in the spring. I guess prior to that I was back 
in France, and I met Edmond Maudiere, who is our present 
consulting enologist. Edmond had come out of Mercier as the 
chef du cave, but also went to the Institute Pasteur and was a 
qualified enologist, although a fourth- generation Champagne 
maker- -his great grandfather and so forth. Edmond, in the 
merger of Mercier and Moet, in terms of the chef du cave type 
of roles, was pushed aside because Mot was the bigger 
company, even though Edmond was totally qualified for that. 
Partly that, and partly because he really does speak rather 
good English, much better than Renaud- -well , I think Renaud 
speaks, but he won't. 

Renaud was ready to retire that coming year, so I was 
introduced to Edmond as being the successor to Renaud. Edmond 
came over with Renaud that spring to taste the wines. I think 
in retrospect that was also a very good stroke of fortune, 
because Renaud was unquestionably an extremely qualified 
Champagne maker, enologist, et cetera, but is not the most 
flexible of people. Edmond is really a very open-minded, 
enthusiastic, optimistic, "try it" type of person. Had he not 
been on the board, I think we might have been a little more 
confined in what we finally did. 

They both came over, and lo and behold, of the wines we 
tasted, the clear A-l wines were (1) Pinot Noir, (2) Pinot 
Blanc, and (3) Chardonnay. But Renaud still insisted that 
Folle blanche and Ugni blanc ought to be used, even though 
they didn't come up very well. The good news with that is 
that we realized that we could expand the purchase of Pinot 
noir and Chardonnay from Trefethen and feel very comfortable 
with what we could make from that wine. We had already 
developed some other sources, albeit rather small, but a 
source for Pinot blanc up at the old Lyncrest vineyard; we got 
that.. I don't remember right now where we got some other 
Pinot noir from, but it was predominantly Trefethen. 

That really, as I said, allowed us to put away some 
reserve wine --Pinot Noir and Chardonnay- -for the following 
year, and allowed us to go back to Trefethen and say, "Hey, we 
can use a lot more." We did that. It also solved once and 
for all that we weren't going to use any Riesling, Semillon, 


Green Hungarian. About the only thing we didn't try was 
Thompson's Seedless. [laughter] I don't think there was any 
grown in the Napa Valley or on the coast; maybe we would have 
if there had been any. 

So that was a very important decision point. We did 
subsequently plant some Folle blanche and Ugni blanc, both in 
Carneros and some Folle blanche up on Mt. Veeder. Those 
vineyards have since been budded over to Chardonnay, Pinot 
blanc, and Pinot noir. [laughs] The theory wasn't true in 

As I say, Edmond came in at that point, and Renaud was 
still on board through that year, I guess. We were on the 
right way, I felt, in terms of the grapes we were going to 
use, and I felt really comfortable with that. I didn't feel 
comfortable making a wine that was out of Folle blanche or 
Ugni blanc . 

Support and Involvement of the French Owners 

Hicke: What kind of financial support did you get, and how did you 
work out that arrangement? 

Wright: Well, just deep pockets. [laughter] Not totally. Actually, 
they brought over a million dollars to get things started. 
That was enough to make the down payments on some of these 
vineyard lands . What I was not aware of at the time was that 
the company, Moet-Hennessy, as successful as it was even in 
those days, was experiencing- -particularly in the subsequent 
year, '73 going into '74 --some pretty severe cash problems. I 
thought, "Heck, there's lots of money over there," but when I 
looked at the balance sheet, particularly when I understood a 
little better how they kept their balance sheet, I realized 
that they had the financial wherewithal, but in terms of what 
they were generating from actual cash, there was not an 
enormous amount of cash. 

I think for that reason, but also for other reasons 
which I've never totally fully understood, they took the 
position of very high leverage, so we almost immediately went 
out and borrowed a hell of a lot of money locally. 

Hicke: From which bank? 


Hicke : From which bank? 

Wright: Initially from the Bank of America. Jack Hart was the head of 
the wine group or whatever at B of A [Bank of America] . We 
borrowed or had a [credit] line of about five million dollars. 
It's always been our policy to be very highly leveraged. 
Today the debt that we have we owe to the parent company. 
Over time they took over and took us out of the banks, but we 
still pay interest to the parent company. It's a pain, but 
it's also good discipline [laughs], because when you have that 
big, huge interest bill out there, life isn't a bed of roses 
from a financial point of view. Life was perhaps a good deal 
more complicated or severe by having this huge burden of debt, 
but at the same time I think it served a certain disciplinary 
purpose of not being profligate (or whatever the right word 

In terms of, "Hey, can we borrow more money?" or, "Would 
you send over another million?" and that kind of thing, they 
were fantastic, just wonderful individuals and very, very 
hands off --really hands off, for the most part. Technically 
it was just a wonderful situation, because I can go to Moet 
even today and interface with the technical people. I don't 
have to go through all sorts of layers of management to do 
this. They are very open minded about this, and vice versa; 
they get stuff from us, and we get stuff from them. But it's 
never, "I'm going to charge you this much for Edmond's time," 
and all that kind of stuff. 

Today, as of a year ago, we are officially a subsidiary 
of Moet & Chandon, whereas before we were a part of Moet- 
Hennessy. So today my real boss is the president of Moet & 
Chandon . 

Hicke: Who is he? 

Wright: His name is Yves Benard. I find that very beneficial in 
today's world, because the overall company, LVMH [Louis 
Vuitton Moet-Hennessy] , in Paris a holding companyis 
composed mostly of people who are pretty much financially 
oriented, as they should be, but without a good deal of 
understanding of the Champagne business per se, but with 
enough sense to say, "The Champagne group ought to run its 
business, and the cognac group ought to run its business"-- 
globally. In that kind of philosophy, which is totally 
correct for today's world, it does make sense to have Domaine 
Chandon- -and for that matter Simi [Winery], which is the 


company that was bought later, not as a purchase directly of 
the winery but as a purchase of our distributor, Schieffelin- - 
to be a part of the champagne and wine group. That's headed 
up by Yves Benard, who is the president of Mot & Chandon. He 
has primarily a technical background; he went to Montpellier, 
which is generally considered to be one of the best schools in 
France for viticulture and enology. He understands the pluses 
and minuses, et cetera, of the Champagne and sparkling wine 
business very well, so it's good to have that relationship. 

But prior to that, when Alain Chevalier was chairman of 
the whole thingpartly because he was the founder with me, I 
guess--! think he always felt he wanted to have a more direct 
line to Chandon. Up until recently we officially weren't a 
part of Moet & Chandon and Epernay, but I never felt that to 
ever be a problem of lack of cooperation on their part; it's 
always been very generously given. So it's been a good 


Hicke: Since we're on finances right now, how did things work out 
with the taxes --for instance, California's unitary system? 

Wright: Oh, boy! Well, back when we formed the company, John Austin 
was there, and we formed the two companies on paper. One was 
called M & H Vineyards, which stood for Moet-Hennessy, and the 
other was M & H Ventures , which was to be a holding company 
based in Delaware, the thought being that by insulating it a 
little bit, the possibility of getting hit with unitary tax 
was somewhat lessened. He went through all this; I didn't 
have the foggiest notion what the unitary tax was then. 
Subsequently I've learned. 

As it turned out, the French government was really anti- 
holding company and didn't allow us to form another holding 
company, so M & H Ventures never really materialized into 
anything. But it was understood, not by me but by the 
financial people in Paris --to some degree, and certainly 
Morrison & Foerster-- 


Wright: It wasn't considered as major an obstacle as maybe it should 
have been considered for the investment. As it turned out-- 
I'm trying to remember- -what we finally got hit with, because 
of the unitary tax, was not as much as one might have 
expected. I forget why now. Because in theory we could be 
losing money here, which we were, but the state of California 
would be taxing on Moet's worldwide profits. 

Hicke: Yes, and maybe even LMVH. It would be incredible. 
Wright: Well, now, yes. Oh, yes. 
Hicke: There's a court case on it now. 

Wright: I think now, where we are in terms of the amount of our 
investment, which is based on the number employees, the 
investment, et cetera, that comes from California, for 
everything, I think, the actual tax implications are pretty 
neutral. What we pay in taxes to California wouldn't be a 
heck of a lot different than what they would be taxing based 
upon their formula. 

Hicke: What about the French? Do they tax this operation? 

Wright: No, only on what's gone back, and nothing has gone back yet. 
Not a sou or a franc. [laughs] I laugh, but we've just 
continued to put money into growth, so we really haven't paid 
anything back. 

Hicke: We've covered my outline pretty well, and we've gotten to your 
first year. One question I'd like to ask: obviously 
Champagne people are used to this, but to make sparkling wine, 
do you have to have a greater capital investment than you 
would for some other wines because of the aging? 

Wright: That's an interesting question. [long pause to think] I 
think a better way of saying it is that you've got an 
investment that is much more affected by economies of scale 
than fine table wine, because you have principally disgorging 
equipment, riddling, and that sort of thing. Particularly 
disgorging is a very complicated kind of thing, and you want 
to do it at a reasonable rate of speed, therefore at a 
feasible labor rate, which means buying some very, very 
expensive equipment. If you're at 10,000 cases, you've either 
got a very high labor input or you've got a reasonable labor 
input with a very high, normally underutilized investment in-- 
we'll call it bottling equipment, particularly. 


If you're a 300,000- or, as we are, a 400,000- or 
500, 000 -case winery, our investment in property, plant, and 
equipment is significantly lower per case than it would be if 
we were a 20,000- or a 10, 000 -case winery. In white wine and 
red wine with their barrel age, every fifty gallons you've got 
to buy a barrel, and that's a very heavy investment, 
particularly if you're using French oak, but even if you're 
using American oak. 

So economies of scale are much more favorable . To be 
bigger in sparkling wine is a bigger economic advantage than 
it is in the fine table wine business. Now, if you're making 
wines that never see oak, then somewhat the same thing holds 
true, except the bottling equipment isn't as complicated or 
expensive in table wine. 

Once we broke the 100,000-case barrier, so to speak, 
which was our initial capacity, I went back and said, "Look, 
I've just pretty much proven that we can certainly sell 
100,000 cases." Our initial strategy was to get in and 
demonstrate that that was true and develop our niche in the 
marketplace. The secondary strategy was to get really 
efficient and be the lowest-cost producer using the quality 
grapes that we did. That said, it made a lot of sense to 
increase capacity, not only for market, because we thought we 
could develop the market, but also because subsequent 
investment per case is a fraction of the initial investment 
per case. 

Champagne or Sparkling Wine? 

Hicke: I know everybody asks why it's called sparkling wine rather 
than champagne; I think that's a story you might tell. And 
then you were just talking about a market niche, and I 
wondered if you targeted some special niche in price or-- 

Wright: Oh, yes, absolutely. 
Hicke: First the name: 

Wright: Sparkling wine. I can well remember- -maybe my memory is a 

little hazy, but I don't think it is; I can at least somehow 
remember Robert- Jean de Vogue telling me, when we were 


starting this whole thing, "John, I do not care, but the 
ChampenoLs probably will not want you to call this champagne. 
Really rather silly of them, because it's wonderful that 
Champagne is such a wonderful image," and so forth and so on. 
He said, "So you go ahead and do what you want." I said, 
"Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think we should label 
the product champagne, because I see the trend anyway going 
away from chablis and burgundy; but a little more difficult is 
the instant kind of image and vision that champagne has. Let 
me think about it." 

As I was thinking about it, Bertrand Mure, who was then 
the managing director of Moet & Chandon, since retiredand he 
was not my boss; in fact, Alain tried to keep all these guys 
out of the States at this point [laughs] - -came over as Mofet & 
Chandon. This was probably '74 or something like that. 
Actually, Bertrand and I got along very well. Bertrand was 
over here for something and got interviewed, and about the 
first thing out of his mouth was, "Of course, we will not call 
it champagne; it will be sparkling wine." So inadvertently, 
Bertrand made the decision for me, and I said, "What the 
hell . " 

For a while it became quite a big point of controversy. 
All the marketing "geniuses" said, "Oh, you'll fail if you 
don't put champagne on the label," oh, horrible, horrible, 
horrible. Other marketing geniuses said we could never think 
of charging more than three dollars a bottle, and all that 
kind of stuff. The San Francisco Chronicle came out with an 
editorial that ended, "As the late Joe McCarthy said," which I 
thought was kind of humorous, to use him as an example, "if it 
smells like champagne, tastes like champagne, and looks like 
champagne, it is champagne and shouldn't be called anything 
else." So there was a little bit of controversy there. 

I think even if Bertrand had not put me into that 
position, I think I still would have believed that we ought to 
call it what it is. Certainly in public or in talking I often 
use the word "champagne" for Chandon. I really don't get all 
hooked up about it, but I think on the label it ought to say 
what it is, which is sparkling wine. I know there have been 
some abuses, particularly among bulk- fermented products, which 
are still on the market at this point, that are not labeled 
strictly according to labeling law. That annoys me a bit, but 
it's not a big deal overall. 


Up until very recently, I'd say Chandon has been 
primarily purchased because we developed a reputation as a 
brand offering quality for a reasonable price, when you think 
about it. I think at this stage we- -Chandon and all the 
newcomers that have come into the business, and there have 
been many- -must work on a group approach towards getting 
recognition of this as a category. Just as California 
Cabernets and California Chardonnays have developed a world 
reputation, California sparkling wine using the classical 
varieties deserves a "world class" image. 

By and large the press doesn't realize this or has not 
particularly publicized that. When the press go out they 
always say, "Well, there's the real stuff- -Champagne- -and 
there's all the rest." They haven't really clearly 
distinguished that there is a class of product out there, 
whether it's Chandon or Mumm Napa or Roederer Estate or 
Domaine Carneros. We are different stylistically, but we are 
all making really quality sparkling wines, higher than 
99 percent of all sparkling wines in the world. 

We need to work on that, and that's the next step, to 
really do more group promotion, publicity, and education of 
this as a category. Otherwise I think we're going to run into 
some problems. We've got an over-capacity situation at this 
point, and it'll get worse. I'm particularly interested now 
not only in what I ordinarily do in terms of the Chandon brand 
but in actually working on the category. 


Hicke : What kinds of things did you do in the beginning to place 
yourself in what you might call the champagne market, but 
calling your product sparkling wine? 

Wright: First of all, since we were new and something really 

different, I think we got a lot of publicity just because of 
that. If you're reasonably large, I'm not sure that getting a 
lot of publicity in the wine and food press does all that much 
for you, just because the people who really read the wine 
columns are not very numerous. Although there are enough, 
certainly in the beginning, if you're reasonably small. If 
you can get to those people and you get a good review, it 
helps. Certainly it gets the point out. Also when you're 









brand-new you get a certain amount of support from the trade, 
because they figure, "Oh, here's something new," and it's a 
great story to tell. It's a great story to tell, but 
interestingly enough the consumer by and large doesn't know 
the story or doesn't respond to it. It's amazing how many 
consumers--! mean very good consumers of Chandon- -don' t 
connect us whatsoever with Mofet & Chandon. 



It's very, very surprising. We have our own 

Is that good or bad? 

I think probably on balance it's been good. What's really 
interesting here is going back to the original strategy that 
demand for champagne was going to outweigh supply. One thing 
that happened was that going into '73 and into '74 we had a 
recession, and the whole wine industry went down. If my 
meeting with Bob de Vogue had been a year later, or certainly 
a year and a half later, this might never have happened. Oh, 
it might still have happened because of Bob and Alain, but it 
would have been a lot tougher. 

So they went from a shortage to a period of surplus, in 
part brought on by some very large vintages; '73 was a big, 
big harvest. Seventy- four was pretty big but not such good 
quality; '75 was small, and '76 was huge. 

Was this in Champagne? 

Yes. Moet found other ways of increasing its production, more 
so than they thought they'd be able to. 

What other ways? 

Well, there are ways of doing this. [laughs] There is a 
whole system, not only at Moet. I don't think many people 
realize this, though it's not ever been particularly hidden, 
that the law on champagne says that if you have your label on 
it, it doesn't necessarily mean you made the wine. 

That's interesting. 

Yes. So there is quite a trade in Champagne in what they call 
vin du speculation, where you can buy wine that's made by the 


co-op or whatever and bring it into your winery, riddle it, 
disgorge it, and put your label on it. Some of that's been 
done, not only by Moet but by all the major companies. 
Generally when they do that they buy good wine, because 
there's very little bad wine in Champagne; they really know 
what they're doing. 

Hicke: And they obviously want to keep their reputations. 

Wright: And generally those particular wines don't get onto the export 
market very much, because they're not exactly the same. 

So there are ways like that, and other ways, such as the 
Mercier brand; we kind of held or decreased its volume. 
Mercier has some wonderful vineyards and base wines, and we've 
used these in Moet blends. So we had much more Mo6t available 
to this market than we ever thought we would, and therefore 
what really happened was that Moet started to grow just as we 
were growing. We started in 1974 --let's say in the era of 
'74, '75, '76, because we didn't start selling really until 
Christmas of '76, and our first full year was '77. At that 
point, the sales of Moet, including Dom Perignon, in the U.S. 
were about 120,000 cases. Of that, as I recall, something 
like 30,000 was to border stores, which is really kind of a 
Mexican type of situation- -Texas , Mexico. So probably the 
true domestic demand for Moet and Dom Perignon was about 
90,000 cases. 

We started at zero, okay? Moet last year sold about 
480,000 cases, including Dom Perignon, and we sold about 
400,000 cases. So both brands have grown; they haven't 
cannibalized each other. And I've never had any pressure from 
France, like, "John, you must raise your price because you're 
taking business away from Moet," or things like that. 

There are a couple of people out there who shall be 
nameless who have almost publicly accused "the French" as 
deliberately wanting to make inferior wine here in order to 
prove that Champagne is somehow superior. That has to be 
about . the dumbest thing I ever heard. We've got seventy or 
eight million dollars invested in this, and we're sure not 
going to put that kind of money into something to deliberately 
make inferior wine. In that sense, the distinct personalities 
of these brands as viewed by the consumer or seems to be 
viewed by the consumer- -is a real benefit. What's interesting 
is that there is very little evidence, which I never would 
have believed when I started, that we gained a lot of actual 


consumer trial and repeat purchase because we were connected 
to Moet. It's quite fascinating. 

Hicke: What market did you target? 

Wright: Geographically, certainly California and, shortly after, the 
key metropolitan areas. 

Hicke: And a price niche? 

Wright: Yes, we wanted to be somewhere in between Korbel and Champagne 
at that stage. In those days there was mandatory fair trade 
in the key markets- -California and New York- -and the fair 
trade price for Chandon was $7.80 a bottle. I think Korbel 
was about $5.80 and Moet was $9.99. Within a year we went up 
to $8.50; Moet was still at $9.99, and Korbel was up a little 
bit at six something. That was all based upon some pretty 
hefty mark-ups at retail in California and New York. In those 
days a retailer typically made a 33 percent margin on his 
sales, so he took his costs and marked up 50 percent. 

Today you've got a very different world out there, with 
major chain stores like Safeway or these clubs --Price Club and 
Costco. Other retailers, in order to compete, take a much, 
much lower margin- -in fact, in some cases no margin. Last 
year the lowest price that I know of that Chandon was sold at 
was $8.49 a bottle, which was basically a retailer's cost of 
picking up the wine from this winery- -a loss leader. 

Hicke: There's no wholesaler? 

Wright: In northern California we're our own wholesaler, so yes, the 

wholesale price, but the deepest wholesale price --the hundred- 
case price. When you consider that when we first opened our 
price was $7.80, and that was in '76, and there's been 
enormous inflation since then, the consumer is getting a hell 
of a deal to get it for that. Meanwhile, Moet and other 
champagnes have gone up from $9.99 to probably the lowest you 
can get Champagne today that I know of is $17.99. But if you 
went to Europe right now, if you were in London, even in a 
discount store, you would pay $40 a bottle for Moet and in 
France about $30 a bottle. So still the cheapest place in the 
world to buy French Champagne is the United States. 

Hicke: Why is that? 


Wright: Because we're a competitive market, and Americans are spoiled. 
We are very assertive, vigorous, nasty buyers. I mean, the 
consumer here is really very, very cost conscious. We 
Americans are not prepared generally to spend the kind of 
money on food and fine beverage that Europeans are. We are 
totally spoiled in this country. It's amazing. 

Hicke: Does the Chandon wine keep the price of the Mot wine down 
here in the states? 

Wright: No, not at all. 

Hicke: So they're not competing? 

Wright: No, no, I think what's kept the price down is that the 

importer agents, of which Schieffelin-Somerset is ours that we 
own, have managed to convince so far the suppliers- -Moet, 
Mumm, et cetera- -that , "Golly, if you're above a certain 
price, you're going to start losing this market." And then 
there's a lag response to wine in inventory that hasn't gone 
through; the wholesaler is still playing games with his mark 
up structure, so that the price increases that have occurred 
in Champagne for grapes and for wine , which are enormous , 
still haven't been fully felt in this market. Once that's 
true- -I mean, by the end of this year, 1991, I can't imagine 
any Champagne brand of any sort of notoriety, or even not, 
being less than $20 a bottle, and more likely $25. But there 
may still be some around. Even the $20 will represent a 
retailer selling at his cost. 

That should offer an opportunity for us. Chandon 
certainly, but also like companies that are using Pinot noir 
and Chardonnay grapes and aging the wine properly and all 
that the others don't have exactly the same cost base that we 
have, because we're more efficient, but we're still looking 
at- -let's say if we buy grapes, and right now we buy about 40 
percent of our grapes and grow about 60 percent, we average -- 
let's make it easy- -a thousand dollars a ton for Pinot noir 
and Chardonnay together. You pay a bit more for Chardonnay 
and a bit less for Pinot noir. I think our average is about a 
thousand dollars. Thus last fall, if we converted what the 
franc was worth then (now it's decreased a little bit), the 
price of grapes in Champagne was seven thousand dollars a ton, 
so we have a seven to one cost advantage. That was at five 
francs to the dollar. The dollar has improved a little bit- -I 
think it's 5.6 or so --but we have clear raw-material cost 
advantage . 


interestingly enough, were about equal to what our costs were 
in pernay, even though they're thirty million bottles a year 
and we're five million bottles. By being new, we had certain 
economies . 

Hicke : And the most modern equipment? 

Wright: Yes. At five or six francs to the dollar, we have a very 

definite cost advantage. Labor input is much lower here than 
it is in France or in Germany or in Italy. Things have just 
really skyrocketed. If the world were a truly fair-trading 
place and totally open, we and other California wineries would 
have a very significant fundamental reason for being more 
prominent in the world market than we are. But it isn't just 
protectionism that prevents more export than we see; a lot of 
it is just plain what people are used to. In the traditional 
wine-drinking countries, which are the big markets- -heck, a 
Burgundian won't drink a Bordeaux, and you want a Burgundian 
to drink a California wine? It's not going to happen. 




Hicke: Let's go back to when you were starting to make wine. What 
was the first year that you made wine? 

Wright: That was '73, and it was kind of amusing- -in retrospect, 
[laughs] I remember Edmond decided that we should really 
press in a closed area. There wasn't any obvious way to get 
it into the Trefethen winery building, so we built an 
extension on it, a fairly simple structure, so it wasn't all 
that costly. We put our one press in there --we only had one 
press in those days- -and it was pretty crammed. To properly 
process grapes for sparkling wine, you don't want to crush the 
grapes, just press themwhole skins- -because you don't 
extract the tannins that way. 

That was relatively easy with Chardonnay and Pinot noir. 
It's just by happenstance that those grapes, and Pinot blanc, 
press beautifully. They've got the sort of skins that break 
up nicely, and they don't have a lot of pectin kinds of stuff. 
Well, Ugni blanc is absolutely miserable, as is Colombard and 
some of these other varieties. So what we had in this press 
were these grape skins and grapes shooting out of the slots in 
the press, all over the building. Oh, it was an absolute, 
bloody-awful mess. Plus, because of this sort of enclosed 
space, we didn't really have at that point a very well- 
designed way of taking out the pommace at the bottom. 

Tony Baldini, the manager at Trefethen, who is really a 
great guy and very flexible well, sometimes he isn't so 
flexible, but he's very ingenious- -dug up an old walnut 
conveyer that husked walnuts or something, and it looked like 


it would carry these grapes out. There we were, and that 
darned thing really wasn't working very well. There were 
grapes and seeds and skins all over the place, the result 
being that the next harvest we tore down that whole structure 
and put the presses outside where they should have been in the 
first place; it's a lot easier to deal with. So we had some 
pretty interesting times there those first couple of years. 
It was a lot of fun. 

I remember another amusing story. We had a big Dempsey 
dumpster type of thing where we dumped all of the cardboard 
and stuff that we had. 

Wright: In those days, as we started our tirage, or bottling, the 

bottles would come in units of fifteen to a corrugated box. 
At Trefethen we aged these bottles- -sur latte, we'd call it. 
You know, we didn't use the boxes; we just stacked bottles on 
top of bottles. So we had all these corrugated boxes, and we 
took it out to the Dempster dumpster to then be sent to a 
recycling company. I was out there, and I jumped into the 
dumpster to get the boxes sort of knocked down, because they 
were overflowing. I think it was a Saturday, and this car 
drives up. It was the local ABC [television] guy from 
California. I forget his last name; it was Italian. He was 
just about to retire. 

He said, "Anybody around here?" I said, "Well, I am," 
and he says, "Yeah, but I mean is anybody in charge here?" I 
said, "I guess I am." He said, "Who are you?" I said, "I'm 
John Wright." He said, "What do you do here?" I said, "I'm 
the president." He looked at me: "What are you doing up 
there?" [laughter] He was pretty amazed. There were some 
amusing times at Trefethen. 

The '73 wine was a bit more mature because we harvested 
a little bit later then. We didn't know quite as much as we 
know now. I remember Tony Baldini was absolutely adamant: 
"Labor Day's a holiday here; we can't start until after Labor 
Day." We went off that Friday before Labor Day, and things 
were getting up there in sugar, but they didn't look too bad. 
This hot spell came in on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and by 
Tuesday the wine was up to nineteen, nineteen and a half Brix. 
It was a bit more than we subsequently harvested to, but the 
wine came out well. We didn't bottle that separately. We 
blended that in with the wine from '74. As I recall, the 


percentage of the two blends of wine from '73- -the Blanc de 
Noirs blend and the Brut blend constituted about 13 percent 
of the blend, so the first cuvee was largely '74. All the 
Riesling and the Colorabard and all that we sold in bulk. We 
didn't use it; we just used the Pinot blanc, Pinot noir, and 
the Chardonnay. 

Hicke: Who did the blending? 

Wright: Oh, Edmond. He's done the blending ever since. By then 

Poirier had retired, so from the very beginning our blends 
have always been put together by Edmond, and they still are 
with, now, Dawnine [Dyer], the winemaker, and Pat [Howe], her 
assistant. Edmond' s been there from the very beginning, which 
is great, because that's provided a degree of continuity. 
It's fascinating to talk to him. I didn't realize it at 
first, but Edmond is outgoing. He's a little hyper, but he's 
very open and nice and humorous and just has a wonderful time. 
He's a wonderful guy and has a wonderful personality. 

I've always accused him of having the best job in the 
company, because he just goes around and doesn't have a lot of 
people problems to deal with and all that. I think he does, 
actually, have the best job in the company [laughs]. 
Fortunately, he loves to travel. He loves to do everything: 
he loves to fly airplanes. 

Hicke: How old is he? 

Wright: Well, he's going to retire this year. He'll be sixty- five in 
calendar year '92, but he's got the personality of a twenty- 
year-old- -just great joie de vivre. I used to notice that 
he'd be very casual about things, which was nice in a way, 
because he wasn't overly, "Do this, do that." He really let 
people develop. But every time he'd come over to blend, he 
was a different person. He was really uptight- -communicative , 
but visibly tense. After the first couple of years, I finally 
said to him, "Edmond, I don't understand this. Every time you 
come over for the blending you're really kind of a different 
person." He said, "Well, yes, you're right." I said, "Why? 
Look at all you blend in Epernay; you blend many more millions 
of bottles, and you've got the responsibility for Dom 
Perignon." This is a shared responsibility; there probably 
would be three or four people who put these blends together at 
Epernay, just like there are here, except that they're 
different people except for Edmond. 


I said, "I don't understand." He said, "When I taste in 
pernay, I have a benchmark of experience. A wine from A? 
[should taste] this way, Bouzy, this way." For each one of 
these communes, he can tell you where these wines come from. 
"Now, when I come to blend Dom Pe"rignon, I won't even taste 
98 percent of the wines." I said, "Why not? There might be 
some great ones there." He said, "We wouldn't take the risk." 
Even though a commune that wasn't the best commune that they 
used in Dom Perignon for some strange reason one year made a 
wine that tasted great, they wouldn't blend it for Dom 
Perignon, which is pretty sensible when you think about it. 

So he's got a benchmark against which to taste in 
Champagne, even though the amount that he is tasting is much 
broader. But here he has no benchmark, he said, "so I don't 
really know. I've got to taste every wine for what it is. I 
can't say, 'Is this a typical Bouzy or Ay and all that?'" 
He's more relaxed today, but I'd say it was eight years before 
he really became what I'd consider to be somewhat relaxed 
during blending. It's a great advantage for us to have that 
kind of experience. Dawnine, the winemaker, came on board as 
a technical assistant in 1975, so she's been here for quite a 
while, which is great. That really does provide a continuity, 
which is quite important. They work together very, very well. 

Of course, every year Edmond says, "It's the best ever; 
the best ever." Sometimes his optimism gives you something to 
wonder about, but generally he's deceptively accurate about a 
lot of things. He'll tell you some stories that are hard to 
believe, and when you check up on them they are very often 

Hicke: Is somebody going to replace him? 

Wright: I suspect- -there's a young man named Richard Geoffrey from 

Champagne, a very capable taster. His family is a long-time 
Champenois [family]. In fact, his father was for many years, 
and may still be, head of the growers' syndicate- -the group of 
growers. When Moe't started the operation in Argentina, which 
predated us by a year or two, there was literally a parade of 
protest in the streets of fipernay, led by Richard's father, 
who thought this was a horrible thing for a Champagne company 
to go make anything outside of France. And now Richard works 
for the company. [laughs] 

He's actually a doctor; he has his M.D. He went all 
through medical school, and then at the last minute he decided 


he really wanted to be a Champagne maker. He's an interesting 
young man. He's primarily doing blending in Epernay, but he's 
also doing the Australian blending and the Spanish blending- - 
blending in Spain, which is a new venture. 

I expect that he's tagged to be Edmond's successor, 
except that I would hope that we could work out an arrangement 
so that Edmond can still be our consultant. I'm sure we'll be 
able to do that. I didn't realize it until Edmond told me, 
but apparently the French used to be somewhat lax about a 
really strict retirement date. Well, they've gone from that 
to just the opposite. Edmond claims it's in the law, although 
I don't know what he means by "law." Unless you're a director 
or something, the year you are sixty- five, you must retire. 
He doesn't want to retire; he's young and vigorous and still 
has a heck of a lot to offer. We'll find a way to deal with 
it; we're not affected by French law, so we can probably work 
out something. 

Building and Equipping the Winery 

Hicke: During the seventies, while you were crushing, pressing, and 
so forth at Trefethen, you were also developing other plans 
for a winery and equipment. Can you tell me about that? 

Wright: Oh, yes. There Edmond played a particularly vital role. The 
good fortune is that Edmond was not only a chef du cave, 
taster, maker of champagne, but when he was at Mercier he was 
also, if not the head of productiongenerally over there, and 
we do the same thing here , you separate the winemaking 
function from the production function. There are a lot of 
good reasons for : that we don't have to go into, but 
generally that's pretty classic. That's what we have evolved 
to here, as well. 

But Mercier was a little bit different, and I don't know 
exactly why, but Edmond was much more involved in production 
equipment and ordering and designing- -you know, getting 
layouts and all that --than a typical chef du cave would be. 
So he came with that background, and quite frankly, at the 
time Moet merged with or, really, bought Mercier- -they called 
it a merger- -despite Robert -Jean de Vogue's focus on 
technology, the equipment at Mercier and some of the bottling 
disgorging equipment was definitely more sophisticated and 


newer than it was at Moet. So Mercier had a very good 
experience there, and Edmond had done most of that. 

I remember in his first period he probably spent a month 
here, and we'd just meet every day, and he'd lay out what we 
needed from the inside out in order to develop for the 
architects what they needed to do. The architects basically 
worked that way, from the inside out. 

Hicke: How did you select the architects? 

Wright: [laughs] That's in the book, too, but we'll get it on tape. I 
was sort of looking around. At that stage I wasn't really 
looking seriously for an architect, but it was getting to that 
point. When we moved from Brussels, we moved to Mill Valley, 
and my son's best friend at Mill Valley Middle School was a 
fellow named Danny Mount joy. When we moved up here, Danny 
came up a couple of times. He came up for this one visit on a 
weekend, and he said, "Mr. Wright, what's happening to the 
winery?" I said, "Oh, we're getting there. We're going to 
start building." "Gee," he said, "my dad's an architect." I 
said, "Oh, I guess that's right. I sort of forgot about 
that." He said, "I think he'd be real interested in this." 
[laughs] I said, "Well, that's an interesting idea. I'll go 
talk to him. " 

Bob, his father, was with the firm Rockrise Odermatt 
Mountjoy Associates [ROMA] , which was the name of their 
company at that time. Bob was one of the managing partners. 
I went down, and I met with Bob and a couple of people on his 
team. They put forth a proposal- -how they'd work, what they 
were going to look for, and all this --and I was really 
impressed with his approach. I think he had a really good 
environmental approach and a feeling that it would be 
inappropriate for us to build a replica, if there were such a 
thing, of a French chateau or that sort of monument building. 
I felt he really had a kind of organic approach. 

Also, ROMA, and the people who are still there- -George 
is now retired, as is Bob and, I guess, all the managing 
partners there [at that time] --were very active in land-use 
planning and community planning. They've done about as much 
of that as pure architecture. Of course, they blended them 
both, and I felt that was a very useful skill to have in 
putting this building up. I guess the chemistry was right, 
basically. I made the decision with not too much thought--! 
mean time spent that they should be the firm we worked with. 


Hicke: I would say it was an excellent decision. 

Wright: I think so. It's been one of the few good ones, at least. 
[ laughs ] 

Hicke: It's beautiful, and it really does fit in with the area. 
Wright: Yes, it really belongs here. I was pleased with that. 

There was a lot of activity getting the winery designed. 
Again, except for one time, my colleagues in France basically 
said, "Hey, it's your baby; you go ahead." But as we got to 
the end of one particular design, I thought, "Well, they're 
coming over anyway, so we might as well have a meeting and 
show them the model at this point." I wasn't totally 
satisfied myself at that stage with what the concept was. The 
concept was not totally unlike what we finally wound up with, 
except the top part of the building was going to be open 
archways with glass, which surprised me a little bit, because 
that wouldn't have been terribly energy efficient. It looked 
great on paper, but it also looked, oh, a little bit Moorish, 
and the French clearly didn't like this. So therefore I 
didn't. [laughs] It was the right decision. 

That was the only time they made any real comment, which 
certainly helped. If I had gotten into a situation where 
everybody over there had their ideas, I don't think we would 
have wound up with much. Whereas basically the concepts were 
ROMA's in terms of its appearance. Of course, the layout and 
all that was mostly Edmond's work. 

The Decision to Use the Mthode Chamoenoise 

Wright: Oh, I forgot to tell youI'm going back in time a little bit, 
while Poirier was still there. He really believed that 
technologically, Champagne was in the dark ages. From his 
perspective, purely technology, you could not make a bulk- 
fermented, charmat -process wine that had the same final 
elegance and character, et cetera, particularly a mouth feel, 
a tactile feel for the bubbles, that you could with the 
bottle -fermented process. But what he loved intellectually 
about the charmat process was its control of bigger batches 
and things like this. He came in and said, "Don't even think 


about the methode champenoise. Make it in the charmat 
process," or the cuve close, as they call it. The French 
never use the word charmat, even though charmat is French; 
they always say cuve close. 

I said, "I'm sorry, but that's got to be the dumbest 
thing I've ever heard." I didn't quite say it that way, but I 
said, "From a marketing point of view, that would be near 
suicide, for us to come in, with a name like Moet & Chandon, 
and make sparkling wine in a clearly less than 100 percent 
quality process." "Oh, oui, oui , oui," but he went on and on. 
He saidand this is always Poirier--"0f course, I don't make 
the decisions, but from a technical point of view, this is the 
way, because it's an industrial way of working, and I think we 
all ought to work in an industrial way." I said, "Well, 
Renaud, maybe so, but from a marketing point of view--." 

This little argument finally wound up in a supposed 
compromise where we would design the winery to produce 250,000 
bottles- -20,000 cases- -of wine that would be true methods 
champenoise, and the rest of the wine we would produce with 
the transfer process, which is still bottle -fermented but 
doesn't go through the riddling. Now, as it really turns out, 
the transfer process is the worst of both worlds, because it 
isn't all that economic; it isn't nearly as economic as the 
bulk process, because you still have the bottles, and you have 
to go through the bottling operation and all that. Really, 
remuage itself - -riddling- -its cost per bottle is not 
outrageous; it's about twenty-five cents a bottle. It's 
outrageous if you try to make $1.99 wine, and you're paying $1 
for tax, yes, but not when you're selling a wine at $6, $7, 
$8, or more per bottle. 

Renaud was absolutely convinced that for some reason, I 
guess because we were Americans, there was no way we could be 
capable of riddling more than 250,000 bottles a year. I said, 
"Look, over there you're riddling 30,000,000." "Ah, yes, but, 
but, but--." I said, "Okay, fine; that's what we'll do." But 
I just knew that it would never happen. Once we started with 
methode champenoise, nobody would come in and say, "Hey, 
where's the transfer process?" So that's really what I did. 
As a consequence, the design of the winery was a bit out of 
kilter, because we really didn't have enough room for the 
remuage for more than 250,000 bottles. We had to innovate a 
little bit. What we did was build a second floor out of wood 


to double that capacity, and then we did a few other things 
and basically managed to overcome that problem. 

By the time we were at the point of doing more than 
500,000, we had already expanded the production outwards so 
that we had additional riddling. 

Horizontal Tanks 
Hicke: Why are the tanks horizontal? 

Wright: Ah! [laughs] When Edmond took me through Mercier on my first 
visit, which is just down the road from MoSt, they have in 
their tank room this great lighting- -red light, and a little 
bit of stained glass windows- -and horizontal tanks. The 
impression it gave to me generally in Champagne, almost 
without exception, if you visit they won't take you into 
anywhere except the riddling and maybe the disgorging, but you 
never see the process, which is a shame. But this room at 
Mercier, this huge hall, was really striking visually. I 
asked Edmond, "Why are these horizontal?" "Oh, just because 
they are." They had a way of refrigeration then. They didn't 
have these two jackets at that time. They took cold water and 
basically poured it into the room and over the tank, so there 
was some quasi- technical reason why horizontal tanks were 
somewhat better. 

I decided that would be really nifty visually, so that's 
why. There are a few technical advantages. Because heat 
rises, with a tall, vertical tank you have to have jackets 
disbursed throughout the tank to get even cooling, and here, 
because of the horizontal nature, we can have it right in the 
middle on one side, and it gets good, even cooling. And 
subsequently I realized that these tanks are a darned sight 
better in any sort of earthquake situation than tall, vertical 
tanks, which are a real problem. The cost per gallon was 
maybe 5 percent more, if that; it wasn't a big difference. 

Hicke: Did you ever find out why the Mercier tanks were horizontal? 

Wright: Not really. 

Hicke: It really is very impressive. 

Wright: That was just borrowing something from somebody else. 


Some Aspects of Harvesting 

Hicke: There were some other things that you did. For instance, you 
used smaller bins for the grapes being picked at some point. 
I don't know if this is still true or not, but these are 
things that I've read. 

Wright: Yes, in those days gondolas were used, for the most part, 
which would hold three to five tons. So we came in with a 
compromise with taking what looks like a prune -picking bin, 
which holds a thousand pounds, and used that as our basic 
container with plastic liners. There's a good reason for 
that. If you get too much piled on you get "auto crushing," 
and you start getting some degradation. On the other hand, 
some of our competitors who come in believe that they ought to 
go to the Champagne situation, which is fifty pounds- -little 
buckets with baskets. I think that's extreme. One of the 
reasons they use them in Champagne -- they say they use them for 
quality, but one of the reasons they use it is that the 
spacing in the vineyards is so narrow that they couldn't get a 
bin through there anyway. 

I would say that if you were mechanically harvesting in 
the daytime and could not get the grapes into the press very 
quickly, certainly that would pose a problem even with 
thousand pound bins. But harvesting at night, as we do, with 
mechanical harvesting, and with a very short time from the 
time the grapes are picked and into the press, there's juice, 
obviously, with mechanical harvesting, but it's not a problem, 
really. What starts to affect tannin pickup and color pickup 
and all the rest is really a combination of temperature and 
time. Generally at night our average temperature for grapes 
comes in at about fifty-eight degrees. Generally even in the 
morning it stays cold, and then it starts to rise at about 
twelve noon. Grapes picked at three o'clock in that same kind 
of temperature type climate- -if it's fifty-eight at night, the 
grapes get up to about seventy degrees at three o'clock. 
Ideally, I think, if we could do it, we'd probably pick 
everything at night. 

Hicke: We're talking about the vineyards that you own, right? 


Wright: Yes, and our growers. 
Hicke : What about the mountain? 

Wright: That we pick generally in the day because we hand-harvest them 
out. We hand harvest quite a bit. We probably mechanically 
harvest 60 or 70 percent and hand harvest the rest. The 
smaller vineyard plots and the mountain vineyards and all that 
we hand harvest, and the larger plots we mechanically harvest. 

Hicke : Do you do any mechanical pruning? 

Wright: No. We're pretty familiar with it. We do a little bit of 
pre -pruning. Australia has done a lot of that, but I think 
they're kind of going away from it because it hasn't been 
totally successful for high-quality products. It has problems 
of getting a regular kind of crop every year on an acceptable 
level. It hasn't been quite as successful as it appeared to 
be in the very beginning. 


Hicke: The new presses- -what kind of presses did you buy, and how did 
they turn out? 

Wright: Originally we bought the Vaslin presses, and they were the 

press that was pretty common in Champagne at that time. The 
alternative presses at that time were the traditional pressoir 
champ eno is , which just isn't very efficient- -hard to clean and 
a lot of other things . 

Hicke: What is the difference between these? 

Wright: The traditional one- -we have one up there [points]; we have 
sort of a museum in front --is sort of a basket that has a 
rather wide diameter to depth ratio, so it's not very deep, 
but it's [wide]. The classic held four metric tons, which is 
called un marc. If you go to Champagne and start listening to 
what their production was in a day, they always speak in 
marcs, which is really four metric tons. "How many grapes did 
you sell?" Oh, quatorze marcs," or "trente marcs." Then they 
have a whole regulatory formula for the extraction from that. 
So you've got the cuvee, the premier taille, deuxieme taille. 
This is all very strictly regulated as to how many liters per 


marc you may extract for each one of these, and quite rightly 
so, because you start getting more pressure on and you pick up 
tannins. This is the best juice. 

Hicke: The cuvee. 

Wright: Generally the premier taille and the cuvee, after being 

fermented separately, are put together for the blends. The 
deuxieme taille, if it's used at all by somebody like Moet, 
would be used in the demisec and the extra dry, because the 
sugar masks some faults. But the reality today is that we 
take the deuxieme taille, and we trade that to a company 
called Marne et Champagne. 


Wright: Marne et Champagne now is, I think, the second largest 

producer in Champagne, and they do a lot of private label 
stuff at a lower price for the French market. But see, 
they've got contracts for grapes, too, so they get cuvee and 
premier taille in their operations, so we'll trade deuxieme 
taille to them. I don't know what the ratio is, but probably 
five liters of this for every liter of that; that sort of 
thing goes on all the time. 

Hicke: For every liter of cuvee? 

Wright: So as a practical matter, we don't really use the deuxieme 
taille there. Here we do the same thing, a little more 
stringent than they do, just to be a bit on the safe side, and 
we don't use the deuxieme taille; we bulk that out, and we use 
the cuvee and the premier taille. 

Hicke: Why do you separate them, if they are then--? 

Wright: Well, just to be safe. We always taste this. I guess on 
average, we have probably utilized only 80 percent of the 
premier taille in our final blends and bulked the rest off as 
deuxieme taille. 

Hicke: It's just control? 

Wright: Yes. And then it varies by year, too. You'll find some years 
where even the deuxieme taille tastes pretty good, except we 
still don't do that. There are other years when even getting 
a good cuvee adds a little more difficulty. 



Hicke: I have a note, "Champagne -style vineyards, 
now what that means . 

but I'm not sure 

Wright: I guess just this little vineyard out in front. 
Hicke: Oh, the narrow--? 

Wright: Yes. That was done exactly according to the way you would 

train and prune a vineyard in Champagne . I think some day we 
should, but we've never made a cuvee specifically from that 
vineyard, probably because the wall is a little hot and so 
forth, so we've always just blended those grapes in with the 
others. But fairly early on we did start using somewhat 
narrower spacing than what was typical. In those days I felt 
it was interesting, from a cash- flow point of view. In 
Carneros soils, which aren't very vigorous, we'd probably get 
grapes a little bit earlier in terms of reasonable tonnage. I 
also thought there had to be a reason why they plant so close 
there. A lot of our Carneros vineyards were planted, let's 
say, rather than 480 or 500 vines to the acre, more like at 
700 and 750. 

Subsequently, what's been learned, which is not 
applicable to every situation, but I think in a lot of 
situations- -well, the conventional wisdom when we started was, 
"Studies at Davis show over time, maybe in the sixth year, if 
you plant 1,000 vines to the acre or you plant 500 vines to 
the acre, you're going to get the same tons to the acre. So 
why not plant 500 to the acre, because it's going to cost you 
less money?" That was the conventional wisdom. Along with 
that conventional wisdom it was believed that if you let the 
foliage proliferate it would provide a certain amount of 
protection against sunburn; if you have very vigorous soils, 
that's all right. Even today you see a typical vineyard like 
that, and in July or so it's just shade all over. 

Subsequently we've been beginning to learn, more from 
New Zealand experience than from California experience, that 
this shading provides some real problems in that canes that 
are shaded are not going to be as fruitful the next year. And 
from a quality point of view, for reasons that I forget- - 
they're sound, logical, scientific reasons- -this vigorous 
growth actually creates a kind of vegetative, herbal -like 


taste in a lot of these grapes, particularly Cabernet, but not 
only Cabernet. So there's been a complete turnaround now, 
where we're going to vineyard training systems where you 
suppress this excessive vigor by planting closer together 
and/or by training upwards, and by hedging- -by actually 
trimming the shoots as they grow. 

When I first started, I asked Keith Bowers, "There must 
be something to this hedging." He says, "Nah, what do you 
want to do--" and he used some analogy like cutting your veins 
to clip these wonderful, beautiful leaves. So that was a no- 
no in those days, and now it's a practice that's being 
recommended for quality. It's really pretty interesting. 

Hicke: So you're starting to do more of that? 

Wright: Oh, yes, at our Carneros vineyards. This phylloxera problem 
that's developing may actually be a bit of a blessing in 
disguise , because in some of these vineyards that are 
developing phylloxera, pulling out a vineyard that was planted 
eight by twelve and I imagine you could probably take a tax 
write-off at that point; I know you can- -and replanting it 
today in a four by six or something, it also turns out that 
you're going to get more production year in and year out. 
You're going to take something that gave four tons to the 
acre, and actually you're going to get about five and a half 
or six tons to the acre, and you're going to get better 
quality. So over the long run, it might be good for overall 
quality of vines growing in the coastal valley, and will 
actually be economic. 

We decided early on when we got into this that the 
conventional way of grafting, which was field grafting--! 
didn't feel very comfortable with it, particularly in mountain 
soils and Carneros soils, so we decided to do bench grafts. 
There wasn't any real good supply, so we did our own bench 
grafts, and we continue to do those today; we have a nursery. 
As long as we got into that, we started looking at roots tock. 
I guess I wasn't so much anti-A x R--well, I was a little 
worried about phylloxera because of its parental heritage 
having a lot of Aramon in it, which is a vinifera grape. 

Also, S04, which was a variety that was used in 
Champagne- -not huge quantities, because with the chalk in the 
soil they used some exotic rootstock that we wouldn't have to 
use herewe got in pretty early, so a lot of our own 
vineyards are on S04 rootstock, which appears to be totally 


resistant to phylloxera. We're fortunate in that sense. But 
now we have a lot of other roots tock that we've been working 
on, so we've got a complete nursery inventory of roots tocks 
that are now coming into favor. It's run as kind of a little 
business on the side. It's primarily for our own needs, but 
we do sell some. 

Hicke: Do you have any phylloxera? 

Wright: Yes, one little patch over in Yountville. We haven't seen any 
in Carneros yet. I think we'd be rather naive if we thought 
it wasn't going to come. It's just that I'm not sure it's 
going to come with the rapidity that some people think. A lot 
of vineyards in Napa Valley are getting to the point anyway 
where you should probably be pulling out 5 percent every year 
and replanting. It's not quite as bad as it seems. 

The Cuvee s 

Hicke : I have another note that says you developed a 100 percent 
Pinot noir cuvee. Can you tell me about that? 

Wright: Sure. We found when we started that the Pinot Noir wines were 
really the ones that we were most comfortable with in a 
blend- -that and the Pinot Blanc; the Chardonnay was still for 
us a little aggressive. However, the Pinot Noir (even the 
cuvee) was fairly heavily tinged with pink; the French would 
say tache. If you really do some research into old Champagne 
books, that was the color of Champagne back in the nineteenth 
century, particularly in good years when it was warm. I don't 
quite understand why, and I think I know better now because we 
do some things, but presumably once the phylloxera epidemic 
started and they re-grafted onto American rootstock, this 
particular color, which was called lion's mane or corail- -kind 
of disappeared. 

Now, the premier taille has even a bit more color to it. 
So for color reasons we felt that the more colored, tache , 
lots were going to present a problem in the blend, not because 
they didn't taste really right but because they gave up color 
that was perhaps a little too pink. So we decided--! guess 
really I decided- -to come out with a whole new cuvee, and we 
originally called it Cuvee de Pinot Noir. That got started 
and became very, very successful. Then we changed the name to 


Blanc de Noirs. It had nothing to do with marketing, nothing 
to do with, "Hey, would the consumers like this?" It really 
had to do with the fact that we had this, and it had a 
wonderful taste and different; it's got a fruitier character 
to it. 

For reasons that have to do with treatment of juice, et 
cetera, the color is less today than it used to be, but it's 
still- -where we get our Pinot noir for the Blanc de Noirs 
cuvee is really primarily from Carneros, and that does provide 
a slightly higher degree color, because the pH is lower and 
the color is a bit more stable. But most importantly, Pinot 
noir vines from a lot of the Carneros area have more of that 
strawberry flavor, true Pinot flavor, that is very attractive 
in the Blanc de Noirs. It really comes through. It's really 
a unique wine in many respects. 

Hicke: When did you start doing this? 

Wright: Oh, gosh, the first Cuvee de Pinot Noir I think we made in 
'74, but without reserve wines. That would have been cuvee 
753. I know we made some from the '75 vintage. I'll have to 
look. I bet we still have a couple of bottles around, 
[laughs] I must say, the first few cuvees we made, we labeled 
on the bottle 174 and 374 (that's right, we did make a Blanc 
de Noirs), and they were bottled in '75. Particularly the 
174, the Brut, was the least -good wine we ever made. We 
thought it tasted pretty great at the time [laughs], but upon 
reflection five, six, seven, eight years later, we realized 
that we've been improving all the time. 

I think the common perception on the part of consumers 
and a lot of writers, journalists, trade, and so forth, is 
that quality wine can only be made in small quantities. I 
think there's a lot of truth to that with red wine, because 
with red wine you are looking for personality and what I call 
contrapuntal notes. There's a polyphony going on there, where 
you're looking at contrasts between hints of cassis and tannin 
and all this sort of stuff. Your developed, great, red wines 
are almost always from single vineyards, and I think you get 
some of that character literally by hand, punching the cap 
down rather than pumping over. Of course, you are finally 
aging them in fifty-gallon barrels; that's important. 

But with sparkling wine your biggest enemy is oxidation. 
Our initial fermentors were 3,600-gallon fermenters. We still 
have some out there that we use for experimental lots. We 


moved from 3, 600- gallon to 500-hectoliter , so that's 14,000 
gallons or something like that, and the quality really 
improved. Today we have those, and then we have 1,000- 
hectoliters, which are about 25,000 gallons. There's less 
oxidation because there's more volume per surface area. So 
long as you have an efficient cooling system, refrigeration, 
there's no disadvantage. Of course, in the old days before 
refrigeration, you couldn't even think of fermenting in that 
kind of quantity because it would get too hot; it would just 
kill all the yeast with the heat of fermentation. 

As we got not only experienced, but also by using larger 
tanks, we felt we improved quality. The other real quality 
advantage to being bigger when you're in the sparkling wine 
business is that you've got more notes to pick from- -more 
vineyards to pick from. What you're looking for is a certain 
base line of quality, but what you want within that are 
differences. The worst would be one variety from one 
vineyard, because that's too --the French use the word monocru; 
it's just too one dimensional. A cru is like a vineyard. 

Also the vagaries , because year in and year out that 
wine is going to change. The same vineyard, year in and year 
out, even in California, produces different wines. But, 
funnily enough, if you work with sixty- five different 
vineyards, as a whole they're each different from the year 
before, but when you put them all together the differences of 
the blend that year are not so different from the prior years. 

Hicke : So consistency is important? 

Wright: Consistency is certainly important, yes. Not consistency to a 
mediocre level, but consistency as a quality factor. Really, 
for quality in sparkling wine you're looking much more for 
harmony and balance. I sort of compare it to Mozart. I think 
of red wine as being kind of Bach- like, very polyphonic and 
moving this way [motions] and this way. Champagne and 
sparkling wine are moving in a very chord- like fashion, so you 
want everything there where it should be, not dissonant. 
Dissonance in sparkling wine is definitely a fault, where it's 
an attribute in great red wines. My music comes into this a 

Hicke: I like that; it's a nice analogy. 


More on Presses 

Hicke: We started to talk about the presses, and we got as far as 
your first one, but we got sidetracked. 

Wright: Oh, yes. We wound up, because of efficiency reasons, et 

cetera, discarding the idea of using the traditional press, 
which most of Champagne has, too. At that time in Champagne 
the two presses that were being used instead of the 
traditional press were the Vaslin press, which is what we 
chose, and the other was generally called the Wilmes press, 
but was also called the bladder press. We didn't like that as 
well, because if you look at the bladder as it was then, 
you've got a rubber inner tube. When you put the air in 
there, that pushes out. What we don't like about that is that 
the room for filtration is only around the circumference. As 
the juice passes through the grapes there's a little bit of 
filtration that goes on, which we like. The bladder press 
didn't do that as well as the Vaslin. 

Hicke: Especially when it's expanded, as you say. 

Wright: Yes, and it's expanded in order to press the juice out. The 
Vaslin press is horizontal as well, but it goes this way 
[indicates]. As you got pressure on, you've got your plates 
here, and you've got this much grapes, so you're getting the 
filtration effect through a bigger tank. 

Hicke: It's pressing in from each side. 

Wright: Yes. We still have one Vaslin left, but there have been 
changes in the technology of pressing, and today the best 
press, particularly for sparkling wine, is what we call the 
tank press. Wilmes makes one, and Bucher, which now owns 
Vaslin, makes another. They were Swiss, but they've expanded. 
That's a design where you've got the cylinder, and on the 
bottom you've got the bladder. That's blowing up this way 
[indicates], and you're getting the benefit of the filtration. 
Also, .because you're using- -as you were here [points], too-- 
compressed air, you've got a lot more control over the 
pressure. It's all computerized; so it's a step upwards. 

You could chemically measure how well you are pressing, 
principally by taking your phenol content. If your phenols 
are low, that's good. Now, it's not good for red wine, 
because phenols give you the tannin, et cetera, but 


particularly in champagne and sparkling wine the lower, within 
certain limits, the phenols the better the quality is for 
sparkling wine. The bubbles in sparkling wine amplify a lot 
of factors , particularly the sense of bitterness and 
astringency. If you were down talking to Bob Mondavi, he 
would say, "Well, you know, I like to get more middle body in 
my Chardonnay, and I get that by grape skin contact for 
twenty -four hours. It's picking up more flavor, and it's 
picking up some tannins." It's developing what he calls 
middle body, which really means that in the mouth and as you 
swallow, it's not empty. Sometimes some still wines are kind 
of empty and short. 

Interestingly enough, if that wine becomes bubbly, that 
middle body turns itself tactually and organoleptically into a 
sense of bitterness and astringency. Far from it adding 
middle body, it actually makes the wine short on the palate. 
The bubbles really accentuate the palate's ability of 
evaluating bitterness -astringency. The one thing a champagne 
really should not be is bitter and/or astringent. It's really 
a very major fault, and there are a lot of sparkling wines 
that are. When I taste, it's one of the things I probably put 
most emphasis on- -the cleanliness of the finish and the lack 
of astringent and/or bitter character. 

Some of that is related to grape varieties, but if 
you've got the right grape varieties, like Chardonnay and 
Pinot noir, the real factor then becomes how you press. So 
the pressing is a very, very important part of the quality. 
If you use a continuous press, it's absolutely disastrous for 
sparkling wine, because it just presses everything out of 
there. And/or if you are sloppy in the way you press. And we 
feel that if you crush prior to putting the grapes into the 
press, you are picking up phenols and tannins that you 
wouldn't want. 

Really the philosophy is different. Within reason- -I'm 
probably exaggerating to make a point- -the philosophy of 
still -wine making, particularly in California, is kind of, 
"Get everything possible out of the grape." You want maximum 
flavor and body and all this. When you're making a base wine 
for sparkling wine, it's just the opposite: "Don't extract; 
just be subtle, subtle, subtle." So it's a different 
philosophy. It certainly does mean, in my opinion, that 
somebody who maybe has been trained or has skills in still- 
wine making isn't necessarily going to make a very good 


sparkling wine, 

It's a really different approach and 

The Domaine Chandon Restaurant 
[Interview 2: May 6, 1991 ]## 

Hicke: Last time we just finished talking about the building of the 

winery, and you told me a lot about that. I wanted to ask you 
about the decision to include a restaurant. Was that part of 
the original plans, or did it come a little bit later? 

Wright: That came on fairly early. The winery site, which is right 
here in Yountville, I had picked for a couple of reasons. 
One, it was very accessible; i.e., we're really at the end of 
the freeway when people come up to the wineries . 

Hicke: To visitors and also to the airport and other- - 

Wright: Yes. Up until that time, most of the wineries in the Napa 

Valley were really north of Yountville. There were a few that 
were south, like Clos du Val and Trefethen. Since most of our 
grapes were going to come from the southern part of the valley 
because we need cooler climates, it made more sense to be 
somewhat south. 

Then I felt a vigorous visitors' program was essential 
to marketing, and therefore we were going to have a winery 
that was certainly going to be open to visitors, with, I 
hoped, a very well-thought-out visitors' program. I didn't 
want to particularly create more traffic up valley. [laughs] 
You see, when you get up there the road narrows, so really the 
site here was ideal for being right on the cloverleaf at the 
end of the freeway. 

That was the reasoning behind picking the site, and then 
once we saw the site I felt what I wanted to do was create an 
experience where people trying the wine after the tour would 
not just sort of walk up to a bar and taste a bunch of 
different things. I thought it would be preferable to have a 
nice environment and be relaxed about all that. That was one 
thing. Second, since we're paying a tax that's twenty times 
that on still wine, you don't give this away very easily, so I 
felt we really wanted to charge for tastings. I also felt we 


wanted to charge for tastings because, quite frankly, people 
usually don't appreciate something unless they pay for it. 


Hicke : 


I notice that now most of the champagne houses charge. 

Yes, and some of the others are doing that, too. The law at 
that stage was quite explicit that to have an on-premise sale 
license you had to have a restaurant, essentially serving 
regular meals at regular hours, not just a cold cut or 
something. So in order to have a facility whereby we could 
charge for the tasting, the law at that point was that we 
really had to have a restaurant. That was how it all came 
about . 

When that decision was made and I discussed the overall 
plan with my colleagues in France, they said, "Well, my dear 
John, if you're going to have a restaurant, it has to be a 
good one, you know. Think of our image." [laughs] So they 
were quite insistent, and I think properly so, that we put in 
a high- class restaurant rather than a hamburger joint or 
something like that. 

What was surprising to me was that I felt the novelty, 
if you will, of a French- owned winery producing sparkling wine 
and the location where we were would be such that we could 
probably expect the restaurant to be reasonably well attended 
and booked up because of everybody who would be wanting to 
come to the winery. As long as they were here, they could 
come in and have a meal. Just the opposite occurred. 
[laughs] The restaurant was an immediate, instant success in 
the sense of it having developed a notoriety really much 
stronger and earlier than the visit to the winery as an 
experience. I'd say almost immediately after the restaurant 
opened we had too many bookings, really, so we were booked out 
way in advance. At the same time, we didn't have that many 
visitors to the winery, so it was sort of the tail wagging the 
dog.. exactly the opposite of what I thought would happen. 

Did people who came to the restaurant go to the tasting room 

Not necessarily; not at all. It was quite interesting. It 
was the cause of developing a theory that I have that I think 
is still valid, and that is that people who are at least 


Interested in food and wine will be immediate experts on 
restaurants, with absolutely no inhibitions whatsoever. I.e., 
they'll go to a restaurant, they'll like the experience- -be it 
the food, the service, the ambience; hopefully it's really got 
to be all three- -and then they'll get back on the phone and 
call all their friends and say, "I just discovered this blah, 
blah, blah." Right? The good news of that is that word of 
mouth works just like wildfire in restaurants. It is really a 
very, very fast kind of communication chain. Of course, if 
things are good, that's good; if things are bad, it can go the 
other way. 

With wine, I think people are just really still very 
inhibited about recommending a wine to other people. They 
don't quite trust their own judgment, which is really pretty 
silly, because most people have very good palates and 
shouldn't have any inhibition about saying, "Gee, I found this 
wine, and it is really good," but they won't do that. So word 
of mouth in wine is a very effective form of marketing 
communication, but it works much slower than restaurants do. 
It's fascinating. It totally, really surprised me. 

Hicke: If you had to do it again, would you also open a restaurant? 

Wright: I would. It was a real struggle. The original kitchen was 
ill designed for the kind of food we were doing, even though 
supposedly our architects had engaged a very qualified 
restaurant consultant. He simply didn't know what it took to 
put out really high-quality cuisine which is all cooked to 
order, so the kitchen was down below and it was too small. We 
struggled with that for about three years, and then we built a 
new kitchen. I thought, "Oh, these chefs; Christ, they're 
awfully fussy." But it really did make a difference. The 
only way I would ever do it over again is that I would have a 
chef there as my main consultant, and ideally it would be the 
chef who was going to run the place. [laughs] 

Hicke: Who was your first chef, and how did you find him? 

Wright: The first chef was a young man [Udo Nechutnys] who had studied 
under Paul Bocuse, who is German but who has lived most of his 
life in France. He came over, and shortly thereafter the 
sous-chef, a very young man, Philippe Jeanty, came over. 
Philippe is from Champagne and had been a protege of a chef 
who is actually employed by Moet in France. Philippe had 
worked for Joseph Thuet in Epernay. Joseph had come over for 
our opening to help we had this big opening- -and he 
recommended to me that as qualified as Udo, the original chef, 



was, he thought it would be a good idea to have a good back 
up, so Philippe came over. 

After about a year, Udo decided he wanted to go and do 
other things, so he left and Philippe became the chef, and he 
has been the chef since then. 

Since 1978 or '79? 

Yes. I think the restaurant opened in June of '77. 

So he's been there for thirteen years. 


The Visitors ' Center and Museum 

Hicke: When you opened the winery and the visitors' center in '77, it 
also included a museum. Did anything very memorable happen 
when you opened it? 

Wright: There was a young lady who was just working for us in the 
vineyards, Judy, who turned out to have had her master's 
degree as a museum curator. [laughter]. We always had people 
like that around. So we gave Judy the job of coming up with a 
concept for the museum, and she really did a great job. 

Hicke : Why did you want a museum? 

Wright: Education, number one. Number two, to make the connection to 
the French parent. It's interesting that even today that 
connection, even for people who come here, is not as strong as 
I would have thought it would be. I'm not sure I know why. I 
think the product itself, the sparkling wine or champagne, has 
a strong image as a product, and then I think that Chandon as 
a producer has a very strong image within that. Whereas I 
would, have thought the connection to the world's largest 
Champagne producer would be very important to people, it 
doesn't seem to be as important as I would have expected, 
which says something- -actually, that consumers are a hell of a 
lot more intelligent than we give them credit for. Rightfully 
so, I think they judge us, not so much consciously as 
subconsciously, on our own merits and don't try to say either, 
"They've got to be good because their parent is the biggest 
Champagne producer," or vice versa. 


Hicke: You think it has something to do with the fact that you 
decided to call it sparkling wine rather than champagne? 

Wright: No, I don't think so. I think most people will still say 

champagne anyway. We do feel that the labeling of the product 
and the way we refer to it should be as sparkling wine, but 
we're not paranoid about it. 

Hicke: You were also the first winery to call it sparkling wine? 
Wright: As far as I know, yes. 
Hicke : How about Schramsberg? 

Wright: No, Jack [Davies] at Schramsberg still uses "champagne" on 
their label. It was a bit controversial at the time. All 
these so-called marketing experts in the press and other 
places said we would really be a failure unless we put 
"champagne" on the label, but we went ahead and did what we 
thought we should do . 

Hicke: Did you actually talk to Jack Davies at Schramsberg very much 
when you were starting out? 

Wright: Yes, we told him that we were coming in. I took Robert -Jean 
de Vogue over to meet Jack. Jack was very cordial and very 
helpful. He sort of laughed and said, "Gee, I'll be able to 
sell Schramsberg to the people who want to compare my wine to 
yours . " 

Hicke: That was a nice way to look at it. 

Riddling and the Very Laree Machines 

Hicke: I want to ask you about riddling and the development of your 
Very Large Machines. Can you tell me about that? 

Wright: For a long time people have looked at trying improve the 
productivity of the classical hand - remiage or riddling 
process. Of course, to a lot of people just looking at it, 
the first thought would be, "Rather than have people turn 
these bottles, why don't you have a machine on each one of 
these racks that turns them?" That's been tried, and, in 
fact, way back. The only problem is that it doesn't save you 


any money, because the real cost in riddling is setting the 
bottles on the racks, taking them off, and the space that they 
take. We could store about 120 bottles a square foot when 
we're aging the wine, but once you put the bottles on the 
racks, on an annual basis --it takes something like six weeks 
for the cycle- -you' re only getting about 10 bottles to a 
square foot. So annualized space requirements are enormous, 
and partly because of the inefficiency of that design, which 
is needed to do the proper job of riddling. 

Hicke: The triangular- - 

Wright: The ptipitre, they call them in French, which means "pulpit," 
an interesting name, I always thought. The cycle plus the 
space does make it very inefficient, and it doesn't save an 
awful lot of money to just mechanize that. What does save 
money and improve efficiency, really, is to come up with an 
idea where you can get more bottles stored in a given area. 
You can do that not only with the geometry but also the 
cycles. If you can do something that will do the same thing 
in ten days rather than forty days, that's where the real 
improvement comes . 

There were two developments, actually. Probably the 
inventor- -I'm sure they are; they claim to be- -of machine 
riddling was Korbel, going quite a ways back, I would guess 
probably in the early sixties. They had a kind of a table 
that the bottles came and went "tshhhh" and then over. They 
saved a fair amount of space , but they also worked at a much 
faster rate because they moved more than once a day, whereas 
in hand riddling you only turn the bottles once a day. 

Hicke: Hand riddling takes so long simply because it takes so long 
for however many people you have to go through and turn the 

Wright: No, because you could always use more people. It's just that 
it appears that the motion used in hand riddling is such that 
if you attempted to turn the bottle more than once a day, the 
sediment after it's moved doesn't settle enough to permit a 
second or a third turn. Now, that's probably partially 
correct. It's probably also correct that nobody's really 
thought about having two shifts- -like, "We'll have one riddler 
come in in the morning from seven to three, then we'll have 
another one from three to eleven, and we'll have another one 
from eleven to seven." 


I suspect that in theory that would work. The reason 
that, in practice, it doesn't and this is a very strange but 
real phenomenon- -is that it's a very personalized thing, so 
it's almost impossible to take a block of wine and switch 
riddlers on it. Riddler B coming in from three to eleven will 
not do the right job on Riddler A's wine, and that's the only 
way it could work. It's just very strange, but every person 
has their own technique. We find that if somebody is going to 
go on vacation- -we allocate blocks to each riddler, and that's 
their block. They can work any time of the day or night, 
really, that they feel like. They don't punch a time clock; 
they just have 36,000 bottles or whatever it is --it's usually 
somewhere between 36,000 and 45,000 bottles. That's a day's 

Hicke: And they're responsible for those? 

Wright: That's right. .If they're going to go on vacation, they go 
when that block is finished. 

Hicke: That's really interesting. 

Okay, we were back at Korbel. 

Wright: Korbel had developed a system, and then the Spanish took that 
and modified it a bit and did some other things. All of those 
systems, which work mechanically very well, pretty much relied 
on special fining agents to flocculate the yeast. We were 
very, very cautious about that, because we felt and continue 
to feel that those fining agents that are based a lot on 
bentonite do tend to strip flavor a bit; so we continued to 
riddle in the classical manner for eight years or so. Then 
there was a machine that was invented in France, called the 
gyropalette, that had actually been in use for a fair amount 
of time in some Champagne houses; Piper Heidsieck by the late 
seventies or early eighties was 100 percent on those machines. 

We started experimenting with those, and we found that 
we could take our regular wine that didn't have any particular 
fining agent in it for the purposes of improving riddling. We 
do use some isinglass and tannin to make the wine brilliant; 
that's sort of the classical fining agent. We did our trials, 
and we found that the gyropalette actually did work without 
having to adjust anything in fining. We bought about twenty 
of them, and when we started looking at them, the then vice 
president of production here at Chandon, Gino Zepponi , who was 
really a very brilliant engineer as well as a great production 


person and a great person, came up with this idea: "Each one 
of these machines has two motors . As long as we have to have 
two motors and the hook-up to the computers and so on, we 
might as well expand from one bin to a bigger concept." 

So he went down the road here and talked to a fellow 
named John Kahlua, who builds various types of things. He 
used to have a big machine shop right here in Napa; he now is 
up in Lake County. John was very good at reducing these 
things to practice, so he came up with the design for what 
Gino called the Very Large Machine; we didn't have another 
name for it. It actually does about four thousand bottles at 
a time rather than four hundred. 

Hicke: It turns four thousand bottles? 

Wright: Yes. But it still only uses two motors, so it's more 
efficient than the gyropalette. 

Hicke: How many times a day are they turned? 

Wright: Three times, generally. I must say my French colleagues were 
a bit horrified when they came. Not horrified with the idea 
of machines, because they're using them in Champagne, but 
there's a certain amount of skepticism about, "Can these 
Americans really do some of these things?" When they came 
over and saw this huge machine, they were absolutely sure it 
wasn't going to work. Actually, in some ways it really works 
better than the small machines. 

Hicke: It's the classic story of American ingenuity. 

Wright: Well, it is. Although really the design of that machine, 
because of its size, is not very practical in Champagne, 
because most champagne houses do their riddling in the caves, 
and the ceilings aren't very high. 

Hicke: Was there some question about the size- -the number of cases 
you were going to be producing? 

Wright: Going back to the riddling, I think I mentioned earlier that 
they thought that producing more than about 20,000 cases with 
the classical method would be very, very risky. It proved out 
that it really wasn't that risky at all. 

Hicke: You probably told me last time how many you are producing this 


Wright: About 400,000 cases, or 5,000,000 bottles. The Champagne 

people always talk in terms of bottles; it's a bit grander, 
you know. 

Fred's Friends 

Hicke: Tell me about Fred's Friends. 

Wright: Our first couple of years when we started, we were making wine 
at Trefethen. Our deuxi&me taille, the last cut on our press, 
we'd never use for sparkling wine. Yet when you get to that 
last cut, as a still wine you have the appearance in the mouth 
of a little bit more body because there's more tannin in the 
wine, and the acids are a little less so it's a bit softer. 
We thought, "Gee, this is really pretty nice wine just to 
drink as it is ." I forget now why, but we decided we wouldn't 
just put it on the bulk market, which is what we do today. I 
think it was partly because we were making sparkling wine, but 
it was going to take three years or so before it was ready to 
drink, so we thought, "Let's have a wine that we could enjoy 
ourselves." So we bottled some of that- -a thousand cases or 

Came time to sell it and we were just going to sell it 
to friends of the company and employees. Michaela Rodeno, who 
was then our v.p. of marketing and communications, came up 
with the idea of Fred's Friends. I guess it was shortly after 
Fred Chandon had been here on a visit. He's a very charming 
person. He took us all out to lunch, the whole group; we had 
about twenty people working then. As I recall at that time, 
he had promisedwhich he later delivered on- -that after we 
had sold a million bottles, everybody would get a trip to 
France. Everybody was quite intrigued with that; I'm talking 
mostly about people on the bottling lines, et cetera. So 
Michaela just came up with the idea of calling it Fred's 
Friends . 

Hicke: Did you then just market it here in the winery? 
Wright: Yes, pretty much. We only market it at the winery. 
Hicke: You don't do it anymore? 

Wright: Oh, yes, we still have Fred's Friends. Oh, sure. It's got a 
pretty interesting label. 


Hicke: I thought I saw it there, but then you said you were sending a 
lot out in bulk. 

Wright: First of all, we think- -we very definitely think- -we should 
stick to our knitting, which is to concentrate on sparkling 

Hicke: You were saying you had doubts about making still wine? 

Wright: We'd never felt that we should attempt to be in the still wine 
business in any meaningful way, because we feel it just 
diverts our attention from what our real business is. Making 
a little bit of Chardonnay, like Fred's Friends, doesn't 
really divert us very much because it's really part of the 
champagne or sparkling winemaking process. It's generally the 
deuxi&me taille, so we don't oak the wine or anything like 
that. We never have enough to sell very much of, so we have 
never been tempted to commercialize the product. I suspect if 
we had, people- -in a way unfortunately- -will only take humor 
in wine a certain way. There's a boundary there, and I 
suspect it's the type of wine, too; tongue-in-cheek can go so 
far, but it can't go too far. 

I think if you're only going to sell a modest amount of 
wine- -Randall Grahm has been very successful down in Santa 
Cruz. He's got some wonderful names for some of his wines. I 
think partly the wine itself, and with Randall's personality 
and a few other things, I don't think he has a problem selling 
those wines. But if he made them in greater quantities, I 
suspect he would have a bit of a problem. 

Hicke: You don't feel people will walk into Maxim's and ask for a 
Fred's Friends with their dinner? 

Wright: Probably not. [laughter] 

More on Marketing 

Hicke: Since we're talking about marketing, let's develop that a 
little bit. When you started selling your wine, what were 


your decisions about advertising and the best way to target 
your market? 

Wright: I came from a background that originally was technical --in 
chemistry- -but I really worked most of my life in market 
development and marketing types of things. I've never made a 
big deal about it; I've never tried to paint a portrait of 
myself as some sort of marketing expert. But I think partly 
because of that background I developed a certain healthy, I 
would hope, disrespect for attempting to differentiate a 
product purely through marketing hype. It depends on the 
kinds of products, but certainly with a product like Chandon, 
where the category itself has a very strong image- -a little 
too strong in a way. It's associated, by and large, with 
celebration and special occasions and this sort of thing, so I 
don't think you have to develop some sort of mystique about 
"champagne," because it has it already. In fact, it probably 
has a little too much; we'd like to see its use more general 
and have worked on that. 

I really felt that 90 percent of our "marketing effort" 
should be devoted to the product. What marketing is all about 
is creating customers, and in this particular area I think the 
product is absolutely the most important thing. So in a sense 
we have invested in the product by really being very selective 
about our vineyards , where we bought our vineyards , where we 
got our grapes from, not attempting to chisel on price. We've 
never attempted to buy grapes cheaply or buy cheap grapes . 

We've never compromised with aging profiles, or not to 
any significant extent. I would say that in the very 
beginning our aging of Chandon was not ideal, and it was less 
than I would have liked it to have been. It wasn't so much, 
interestingly enough, because we wanted to age less to make 
more money; it was that the demands of the marketplace were 
such that we almost couldn't say no: "If they have to have 
it, they have to have it." We went as low as fourteen months 
at one point early in our game on aging. The wine's okay, but 
it's not really what it should be, so we've always worked on 
pushing that up- -you know, other sorts of things, where if it 
isn't in the bottle it isn't there. That's number one for me 
in terms of marketing. 

Number two and for this we really borrowed a lot from 
our parent company. Moet in Europe spends virtually nothing 
on advertising. Their whole focus is public relations, and 
part of that is --rightly or wrongly, but I tend to think it's 


perhaps more right than wrong, or correct- -if you have a 
rather prestigious product and you over -advertise that 
product, you tend to lose its sense of prestige. This is 
particularly true of Dom Perignon, for example. You will 
never see a Dom Perignon ad, and yet if you do advertising 
research on consumers, they will mention that they've seen Dom 

Hicke: It's a familiar name, yes. 

Wright: Quite frankly, I was not at all a believer that advertising 

would ever do very much for us. We have from time to time put 
money in advertising, much more than I thought we should, and 
I don't think it has ever had any benefit. Public relations, 
getting some recognition in the media is important, but really 
more important than that is the public relations that takes 
place right here at the winery. We get now 150,000 people a 
year, and if they like the product and they like the 
experience, they'll be good consumers, and they'll tell their 
friends about it. I just don't think there's any substitute 
for that, so that's really where we put most of our thoughts 
and our effort. 

Hicke: Who came up with the idea of the stars and the line drawings? 

Wright: Well, a lot of that was from our original package -de sign lady, 
and she still does our package design. Her name is Susan 
Pate. She immediately saw the star in Chandon and really 
focused on that, as I guess any good designer would. It's 
interesting to me that, not because they were all bad, but 
just historically we've probably had four or five different ad 
agencies of one sort or another. I think what frustrates me 
about- -all of them had some good, creative people in their 
agencies, but they'd always look for something other than the 
product itself to kind of get a hook. That always mystified 
me, that they've got to play with something else rather than 
the thing in itself. I can understand part of that, but I've 
never really felt that any ad agency that we've ever had has 
really understood what we're really trying to do and how to 
communicate that . 

It's probably not possible to do that. Secondly, the 
nature of the fine wine business is that- -my guess is that the 
consumer population we have for Chandon is at most maybe a 
million people a year- -if that- -that consume our product, out 
of a population of 240 million. So it's not very effective to 
use a mass communications form of marketing to a market that's 


not a mass market. It just simply isn't. But we haven't 
found the right way yet. [laughs] We've done all right, but 
I'd like to find more efficient ways. 

Hicke: Well, you developed the direct marketing through the Chandon 

Wright: Yes, that's the thing that we really are working on now. It's 
quite possible that the club, in which there are now about 
ninety thousand members , might be accounting for 50 percent of 
our total sales. 

Hicke: Is that right? 

Wright: It's kind of hard to trap, but our research shows that a 

Chandon householdnot the individual necessarily- -claims to 
consume two cases of Chandon a year. Generally when people 
are interviewed about their consumption of beverage alcohol 
products they underestimate, so I don't know in this case. If 
that were the case, then that would be 180,000 cases a year, 
or about half of our sales. 

Hicke: That's very impressive. 

Wright: Yes, it is. I tend to think maybe it's not quite that much, 
but it appears that Chandon is a product that, when people 
really enjoy the category and then the brand, their annual 
consumption is pretty substantial. It doesn't take that much 
to go through a case of champagne. [laughs] Not as an 
individual, but if you have a party or something. 

So that's very important, and of course classic, direct 
selling is pretty difficult if not impossible because of the 
laws. Also, I'm not sure that even if we had that opportunity 
we wish to compete with our conventional distribution channels 
and try to sell directly to people. But to communicate with 
consumers and to do things for them, and to have these Chandon 
Club events and come out with a quarterly newsletter, et 
cetera, all keeps Chandon in their minds and reminds them from 
time to time that we're there. 

Hicke: You have a special bottling for the Chandon Club? 
Wright: We do, yes. We have a Chandon Club Cuvee . 
Hicke: How many cases? 


Wright: Oh, a couple of thousand. 

Hicke: That adds to the feeling of being part of what's going on, I 

Wright: I think so. 

Hicke: Let's go back to the growth starting in the late seventies. 
Did you try to sell in California and throughout the United 
States? Then eventually I know you went to Australia, Japan, 
Canada, and other countries. 

Wright: The introduction of the product in late '76, Christmas of '76, 
was purely in California. Even today California accounts for 
close to 50 percent of our total market. Shortly thereafter, 
in '77, we launched, if you will, the brand in places like New 
York, Florida, Chicago --the major markets. 

Hicke : How did you do that? 

Wright: Stu Harrison, who is now the marketing guy for Opus [One] at 

Mondavi, had come from Almaden [Vineyards]. Stu and I decided 
originally in California that we would sell direct. By that I 
mean we wouldn't go through a wholesaler; we'd have a person 
in southern California and a person in northern California, 
and we'd call on retailers and restaurateurs, more or less 
with the feelingwhich was correct- -that certainly in the 
beginning we didn't need to sell the product to every little 
restaurant and corner store. We still don't, for that matter. 

Stu hired two people, one for the south and one for the 
north, and they got right on board and starting doing some 
very nice things. Then Stu spent the rest of his time 
interviewing wholesalers in the rest of the country, starting 
obviously with bigger markets, and making some decisions about 
who those wholesalers should be. However, at that stage my 
colleagues from France convinced me that the then agent - 
importer for Moet and for Hennessy, Schieffelin & Company, 
should be brought in. 

I was somewhat skeptical about it, depending on the 
terms, because in those days the mark-ups, the margins, that 
the classic importer-primary distributor folks had was based 
really on their role as an importer, so it was based on their 
being the marketing company, really, for Johnny Walker or for 
Haig and Haig. A lot of it started from the Scotch whiskey 
business as the base of these types of companies like 


Schieffelin, Twenty-One Brands, Somerset, Frederick Wildman, 
et cetera. 

Hicke: Was this before or after they were acquired by Moet? 

Wright: This was before. I just felt we simply couldn't afford that 
kind of what I thought was an unproductive waste of money on 
the kind of margins they took. I did finally; I negotiated 
with Schieffelin, and they were willing for certain markets--! 
thought because they were a New York-based company, and New 
York is a very complex market --it's a very difficult market; 
there are very peculiar things to the New York market that 
make it rather difficult. I felt because of their position in 
New Yorkand in some ways Florida is, funnily enough, kind of 
an appendage of New York. 

Hicke: Well, they probably have a lot of the same population. 

Wright: Yes. We wound up taking New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 

and Florida and putting that into Schieffelin' s hands but as a 
sales agent rather than a marketing company, so they adjusted 
their commission rate to accommodate that. I think they were 
very understanding about that. Of course, about 80 percent of 
their profits at that time came from Moet & Hennessy [laughs]. 
I'm not aware that Moet ever strong-armed them into anything, 
but I think they realized that there was a reason to be 

Hicke: The difference between being a sales agent and being a 
marketing agent means they didn't do much promotion? 

Wright: Right, that the marketing budget- -p. r. or whatever advertising 
we did, merchandising and all that- -Domaine Chandon funded 
rather than just give them x number of dollars and let them do 
whatever they wanted. It's kind of a fine line. 

Hicke: Whatever they did was directly by your request or under your 

Wright: Yes, or they would say, "We need"- -I don't know what it was in 
those days, maybe some special merchandising in New York, and 
they would give us what they felt they needed. We'd say, 
"Okay, we'll fund it." But in my opinion the real advantage 
of seeking their help was the quality of their sales force and 
their presence in the market, so that worked. 


Meanwhile, Stu was pretty busy on the road and 
performing, really, a very important role of selecting the 
right distributor in a given market, which isn't easy. It was 
a bit controversial, because Schieffelin- -and I can understand 
their position- -would have liked us to have gone with the same 
distributor in every market. We felt that would be a mistake, 
because a lot of their distributors looked upon Chandon in 
those days as a kind of, "Well, yes, we'll do it as a service, 
as a sort of a junior Moet brand." We really felt we needed 
to have our own strategy, our own image, our own identity, and 
we needed wholesalers to really build the brand for us and not 
just look upon it as a fait accompli and an appendage of Moet. 
So we did not in every market have the same distributor, and I 
think that was healthy at that point. 

Hicke: Was Canada the first outside the United States? I know you 
took a trip to Japan in '84. 

Wright: Yes, we started a little bit of exporting to Canada fairly 
early on. I'm trying to think of when the Vancouver Wine 
Festival really started; it was probably in the late 
seventies. It's still in existence, and every year there is a 
big tasting. It raises money for the theater in Vancouver and 
has been very successful; I think probably it's a major source 
of their funding. 

We went up to that and immediately had three or four 
potential agents after us, really for the province of British 
Columbia. I think we were probably into British Columbia 
before 1980, and Alberta came pretty much along with British 
Columbia. For the eastern part of Canada, we finally went 
with the Moet agent, and eastern Canada has never been very 
vigorous for a lot of different reasons. Quebec's got its own 
little game it plays, and then Ontario has it's game, so 
western Canada is much more open to California wines in 

Hicke: You stay out of those games? 

Wright: Yes. 

Hicke: Was Japan in '84 the next big expansion? 

Wright: In terms of exports, yes. I felt then, and I'm rapidly 
changing my mind in some respects, that we can't look to 
overseas markets to solve any problems that we might have. 
We've got to do the right thing in the U.S; the U.S. is 


basically our market. I felt that there are a lot of people 
in the California wine industry who have unrealistic 
expectations about the potential for export of California 
wines. If I were a Robert Mondavi or a winery like that-- 
let's say at the upper end, being on the Hotel Ritz wine list 
in Paris or the Plaza Athenee, or in London, Hong Kong, et 
cetera- -I'm sure it's a very useful marketing tool for 
developing more business in the United States. Because what 
you're really looking for is particularly the New Yorker- -or 
let's say people from the East Coast; I won't pick on New 
Yorkers specifically- -who have a certain prejudice towards 
European wines. If they're out there in Paris or London or 
Hong Kong seeing a California wine being on a prestigious 
European hotel list, that says something about the wine. 

Hicke: Good point. 

Wright: It's very useful for that sort of thing, but because Moet is 
sort of everywhere, even though we're not Moet, it doesn't 
make a lot of sense for us to try to pursue something like 
that. It's just not the same sort of thing. Being present, 
at the upper end of the California wine industry, in some 
European markets, particularly in prestigious restaurants and 
hotels, has some marketing utility, but it isn't going to move 
a lot of cases. 

The low-priced end of the business is for the most part 
a business- -I'm not saying our quality isn't competitive; it 
probably is, and it's probably better in some ways at a 
certain price, just thinking in world terms. But there's so 
much out there. There's Bulgarian wine, Romanian wine, bulk 
French and Italian, et cetera. It's not that evident that 
there's any substantial business or that there hasn't been 
historically. Also I personally think--! guess self interest 
comes in- -that in certain markets, like Japan, we're making a 
mistake supporting wide -scale promotion of low-priced 
California wines, because Japan is so image driven that it's a 
very bad long-term strategy. If we really want a position in 
Japan in the future, we should be focusing on our best wines. 

However, despite what I've said, I think that assuming 
the present levels of the dollar versus other currencies stay 
where they are or that the dollar doesn't all of a sudden 
become very much higher in value, as it was in '85 and that 
era, we are very competitive in high-quality wines. There are 
some markets, even in Europe the U.K., Switzerland, 
Scandinavia, and Germany maybe; I'd say the markets are 


countries that don't produce wines- -where I think there is 
some opportunity. Not just to develop the problem is that 
people get an order for a truckload, and they think this is 
great. Then it gets over into the market, and it never moves, 
so that isn't very productive. But I think California wines 
do have a better potential in export today than they did five 
years ago. From Chandon's point of view, we should be looking 
at it and doing more about it. 

Hicke: Your original trip to Japan, as 1 read about it, was to 
promote Blanc de Noirs with sushi. 

Wright: Well, I don't know about that. Maybe that was my hope, but it 
doesn't work actually. Blanc de Noirs does go beautifully 
with sushi, but the people who most appreciate that are not 
Japanese. [laughs] The Japanese are still pretty traditional 
in what they think goes with what. Frankly, they're 
horrifiedcertainly the older Japanese- -with the idea that 
anybody would think of having anything with sushi other than 
sake or beer. But it'll change. 

Domaine Chandon in Australia 

Hicke: Tell me about Domaine Chandon in Australia. 

Wright: Going quite a way back, I'd say late seventies and early 

eighties, Alain Chevalier, who was then chairman of my parent 
company, said something to me about, "You know, John, this is 
now doing very well. I've always thought maybe the next 
country should be Australia someday. Since you're closer to 
Australia, and you speak their language--" [laughs] so to 
speak, but better than he did-- 

Wright: Alain Chevalier was saying that I should put in the back of my 
mind that we ought to do something about Australia sometime, 
and that was it. Then in '82 Pan American was doing kind of a 
fun thing, where winemakers would get a first-class ticket on 
Pan Am. All we had to do was pour our wine and discuss it 
with the people on the plane. So I had this opportunity to go 
to Australia on one of those things; I thought, why not? 


I went over in ' 82 and was really very intrigued by what 
I saw and by the wines I tasted. I realized that at that 
stage the Aussies were drinking a lot of bubbles. 

Hicke: Oh, were they? 

Wright: Oh, very much more than the Americans in terms of per capita 

and also in terms of sparkling wine compared to still wine. I 
think sparkling wine in Australia was something like 
12 percent of total wine sold, whereas here it's something 
like 6 percent. There was no what I would consider to be 
quality Australian sparkling wine, even though there were some 
very high-quality still wines. There was no logical reason 
why really good Australian [sparkling] wines could not be made 
out of Pinot noir, Chardonnay, et cetera. 

When I got back I did a little modest lobbying but 
didn't really get too serious until '84, at which time the 
technical people of Moet started asking me a bit more about 
Australian wines. I could see that they were interested, 
which was a very good sign, because they play a pretty 
important role in terms of what top management listens to. So 
I organized a trip where the head technical director of Moet 
and I and a couple of other people took a trip through 

Hicke: Was that Richard Geoff roy? 

Wright: No, his name was Philippe Coulon; he's Richard's boss. 

Philippe got very intrigued. That was in the fall of '84, and 
we had managed by the Australian spring of '85, meaning 
February or March, to work a couple of deals out with some 
people that I knew, so that we actually had wine made for us 
as early as '84, some of which we've used in our original 
blends. It was the same sort of situation--! think in 
retrospect we should have gotten into Australia in about '82 
or '81. Even though we were pretty much the first, I think we 
would have gotten a bit more of a leg up. We certainly 
weren't too late in any way. It's just that there would have 
been a real opportunity if we had started in '81 or '82 to 
have developed a really strong brand recognition by now, and 
now we're just starting to do it. 

Hicke: Why do they drink more sparkling wine, do you think? 

Wright: They have less inhibitions. [laughter] Aussies like to have 
a good time, and they drink more of everything. They were 


never settled by Puritans, which I think does make a 

Hicke: Do they consider sparkling wine a little bit more commonly? 

Wright: Yes, they're very irreverent, which is very nice. A bottle of 
Moet (Mo-ay, as they call it), which is the leading Champagne 
now in Australia, they'll drink quite happily at the drop of a 
hat. It's not that big a deal. What has happened is that the 
prices of Champagne have really gone up in Australia, and 
that's put a certain damper on it, which is helping the 
Australian products, too. They've got a lot of sparkling wine 
they call champers, and they'll use the word whether it's 
champagne or cheap stuff; they're really irreverent. 

Hicke: Champers? 

Wright: Yes, they've got wonderful nicknames for all sorts of things. 
If you went to the Melbourne Cup Race, which is one of the big 
holidays in the state of Victoria- -the state of Victoria 
declares a holiday on this horse race, which is the first 
Tuesday of every November, and the rest of Australia watches 
it on the telly. If you come from the United States and go to 
Flemington race course and see the number of bottles of 
sparkling wine or champagne lying around the race course at 
the end of the day, you would guess that the Australian 
champagne consumption was ten times more than it is. 

Hicke: Basis for a good marketing decision? 
Wright: Right. 

Managing a Winery 

Hicke: I'd like to get some information about your management style, 
if we. can talk about that a little bit. For instance, I know 
you have worked as a waiter in your restaurant. 

Wright: Yes, just to kind of find out what goes on. I've never 

considered myself a very good manager. Sometimes I think the 
word "management 11 to a lot of people means administration, 
going through a lot of details, supervising, and all that. I 
always believed that most people, if given the opportunity, 


are really motivated to do a good job. I don't think you have 
to sit around looking over their shoulders, coerce them, or 
otherwise motivate them. If the environment's right, I think 
most people are motivated. Oh, there are occasionally going 
to be a few bad actors here and there. 

So I'm a very hands -off kind of person. I think the 
best side of me is more in the big picture and partially 
creative part of things. It's certainly not in detail or 
administration; I'm a terrible administrator, as you can see 
as an example this morning, when I thought you were going to 
be here later. [laughter] All I had to do was look at my 
calendar, but I didn't look at my calendar. Fortunately I 
have people working with me who handle administration 
extremely well. 

Hicke: I think finding good people is certainly an important part of 
management . 

Wright: I think so, too --or leadership or whatever. I feel that my 
role is more a leadership role than it is a manager's role. 
It's a matter of semantics. I think it's very important. In 
picking people, for me talent and what I call chemistry are 
far more important than what they've done in the past. I've 
never expected somebody to have 150 million years of 
experience before we hire them. Experience you get on the job 
anyway . 

As a company starts, I think it's very appropriate to be 
very loose about not constricting people and not having too 
many rules and too much structure, but being tight about 
making sure you're going in the right direction and 
understanding what you really want to do. I think as the 
company has matured there's probably a need for a bit more 
structure, but I guess I think there's less need for structure 
here. People ask, "Do you have an organization chart?" No, I 
don't have an organization chart. Now, I can draw you one in 
about two minutes that is pretty accurate. It's probably 
useful to give to somebody on the outside so that they know 
who's, who, but it has no meaning within the company. You 
know, if somebody has to look at a chart to show who they 
report to and this and that- -I don't think it's very useful. 
The same thing with job descriptions; I'd rather have a person 
come to me and have her or him tell me what they think their 
job is, not run over and try to put things in words that 
generally don't mean anything anyway. 


I guess in that sense I'm a pretty loose, unstructured 
kind of person, which bothers some people. 

Hicke: It's apparently very successful. 

Wright: Yes, but there are people I know who from time to time get a 
little frustrated, and I can understand why. Certainly some 
rules are necessary, and it's not that we don't have rules. 
There could be a few more. 

Hicke: I think it's really interesting, considering you started out 
hiring the people down the road to work in your vineyards . 

Wright: Yes, it is. I think partly it's just because of the origins 
of the company. When it's that kind of a beginning there 
tends to be more of a family- like atmosphere, which certainly 
has its advantages. I think it can be overdone. I think a 
company can take advantage of that and ask people as part of 
the family to do things that are unreasonable. I don't 
suppress the family thing, but I don't like to visibly play it 
up too much. 

The Debut of Panache 

Hicke: Getting back to the wines, let me ask you about Panache. How 
did that come about? 

Wright: It's not very important; it's just a little wine. There's an 
aperitif that they make in Champagne called Ratafia, which is 
essentially grape juice and brandy. There's one very similar 
that is perhaps more appealing to most people made in the 
Cognac district, called pineau de charentes, which funnily 
enough has a rather big market in eastern Canada. There 
again, it is essentially grape juice and brandy- -in that case 
Cognac. With our deuxiSme taille, our second cut of Pinot 
noir juice, we really didn't have much of a market for it, so 
we thought we'd use that as a base for making an aperitif type 
of wine like Ratafia. Having made that, fooling around with 
names, eventually Michaela Rodeno's husband, Greg Rodeno, came 
up withhe was thinking of Pinot, sort of, and then Panache. 
Panache, of course, is a panoply of whatever, so that's how 
the name got invented for the product. It's a little fun 
thing we do on the side, but it's not a big part of our 


Hicke: You seem to have a lot of fun. 
Wright: Well, I try to. 

Buying the Shadow Creek Winery 

Hicke: Let me ask you about Shadow Creek, which I believe you just 
bought in '88. 

Wright: Shadow Creek as a brand I believe was pretty much started by a 
man named George Vare . George has now just become the 
president of a very good wine distributor in California on the 
Central Coast. George had been in the wine business and was 
interested in sparkling wine and kind of bootlegged this 
product. It's been made in a few different places. In our 
comparative tastings, Shadow Creek always showed up very well 
in a style we liked, somewhat different from Chandon but 
nevertheless a style that we liked. 

I forget the whole story, but George finally sold Shadow 
Creek because he wanted to do other things, and it wound up at 
Corbett Canyon, down in the San Luis Obispo area. I'd always 
had a high regard for the former winemaker at Korbel, Jim 
Hunsinger, who is now with Sutter Home. He is one of the 
better, experienced, and more talented sparkling winemakers in 
California. I always kept in touch with Jim, so I knew he had 
gone to Corbett Canyon to make Shadow Creek. 

Corbett Canyon got sold to The Wine Group, or the people 
who make Franzia and Tribuno. Art Ciocca is the head of it. 
Art called me one day and said he'd been looking at overall 
strategic direction. He didn't feel that Shadow Creek really 
fit into Corbett Canyon and into what they were doing, and 
would we be interested in buying the inventory that was there 
and the brand? At that stage --this was in '88 --we were 
concerned about eventually running out of grapes from Napa and 
Carneros for Chandon and did not want to use grapes from other 
parts of California for Chandon because we feel it would 
change the character and style of the wine. So we felt Shadow 
Creek could be a brand where we could use our expertise and 
background and utilize some of the grape resources that we 
knew existed in the Central Coast, down around San Luis 


Obispo, and up in Mendocino, which are very good grapes but 
something we wouldn't want to risk putting into Chandon. 

That was our underlying reason for purchasing the line. 
Now things have changed a little bit, but there's still a very 
real role for Shadow Creek. 1 think the potential shortage 
for grapes is less of a concern right now because the market 
is soft, at least for the moment. On the other hand, because 
of where the grapes come from and also the fact that our fixed 
costs are already here, we can take Shadow Creek and put it 
into a niche which is lower than Chandon' s and have some 
success with that particular price niche --very high quality, 
but at a somewhat more generous price . 

Hicke: Is the wine made here? 

Wright: Yes, it's made here. 

Hicke: Was there a winery that you bought with it? 

Wright: No. In fact, that was one of the advantages; we didn't want 

to buy a winery. It was being made at Corbett Canyon, and one 
of his reasons for selling it was that he had to make some 
production decisions himself about space. To continue to make 
Shadow Creek was going to be a problem. That was ideal for 
us, because we don't really need another winery. But we could 
take something like Shadow Creek- -not that the grapes are a 
great deal cheaper, but they are a bit cheaper. Also, shortly 
after we bought Shadow Creek we bought some vineyard acreage 
up in Mendocino for a very attractive price, so our cost for 
growing grapes up there is very attractive. It's Pinot noir 
and Chardonnay, excellent quality. 

Our cost base at Shadow Creek, depending on how you play 
those games, is less, which permits us to come out with a 
different price level for Shadow Creek without damaging the 
image of Chandon or the image of Shadow Creek. 

Hicke: That was kind of an unusual way to buy a wine label, to have 
them call up and offer to sell it to you. 

Wright: [laughs] Well, yes, I guess so. I think probably Art trusted 
me, and I trust him. He wasn't trying to pull a fast one on 

Hicke: Had you thought about expanding in that direction at all? 


Wright: No, not specifically, but I certainly was thinking about grape 
resources . 

Hicke : So it came at a good time . 
Wright: Yes. 

Viticulture Experiments 

Hicke: I want to ask you about the testing of Pinot noir grapes in 

the Carneros area. Are you involved in some of the tests that 
[University of California] Davis is doing down there, or are 
you testing in your own vineyards on clones? 

Wright: We do a lot of trials all over, but particularly at Carneros 
on clones, but also on trellis. Some of the stuff that Davis 
and other people are working on we are participating in and 
doing some of our own things. And not just with Pinot noir. 
I think where some of the real breakthroughs are going to come 
from in the future are more in viticulture than in enology. 
As we learn more about grapes and the relationship between 
quality and practices in the vineyard, there are some really 
interesting things happening. 

There's been a very dramatic change in what was once the 
accepted planting spacing, et cetera, for grapes in 
California. I think the initial attitude of, say, Davis in 
those days --and others; it wasn't just Davis --was to look at 
spacing more on the basis of what is the maximum spacing you 
can have and still get a decent yield. I'd say in those times 
nobody was doing any work on trying to relate any of that to 
quality. Quality was established more or less by climate and 
grape variety; that was pretty much the standard thinking, 
which is not incorrect but not totally correct. It's more 
complicated than that. 

-In recent years, probably starting more from New 
Zealandbecause they had severe problems with overly vigorous 
vines and therefore sort of herbal, vegetative 
characteristics, they started doing a lot of trials of 
reducing vigor in the vineyard by closer spacing, different 
types of training, and all that. Shortly thereafter in 
California it became more and more evident that this idea of 
just letting these vines grow with maximum leaf cover isn't 





Hicke : 

particularly good either for quality or for consistent yield. 
So a lot has been going on; canopy management is probably the 
best word. 

We do find on our trials with vineyards that we've 
planted more recently that managing canopies better does 
produce both better yields and also better quality. A lot is 
going to happen, I think, in that area. 

I have read and heard that Pinot Noir is a difficult varietal 
to make, but I don't know if it's because there are so many 
clones of the grape or-- 

I think as a red wine it's very difficult. 

That's what I meant, 
champagne . 

I didn't know if it applied to the 

On the contrary, as a base wine for sparkling wine, it's a 
very easy, very forgiving grape, actually, much more so than 
Chardonnay. I think it's partly because people have in their 
minds, rightly or wrongly--! think it's wrongly- -that if 
you've got a red wine that's made from Pinot noir, it ought to 
taste exactly like a burgundy. Nothing tastes exactly like 
that, you know. The flavors of Pinot noir are so subtle. 
Cabernet has a very strong flavor, a lot of Zinfandel has a 
pretty strong flavor, Merlot, Sangiovese, et cetera. Pinot 
noir has a very elusive, almost vinous character, and it 
doesn't have a strong flavor. Therefore, I think it's much 
more specificboth clones and soil and climate. 

Many, many lovers of wine would probably say the best 
bottle of wine they ever had in their life, if they had one, 
was a really great burgundy. You know, if it's a really great 
burgundy, it's a very memorable wine. A lot of us , I'm sure, 
have a challenge of attempting to duplicate that, and it's 
very, very difficult but very challenging to work with that. 
I think Carneros is an area for red Pinot noir that gives a 
very delightful character, but I'm not sure it's a substitute 
for burgundy, and I'm not sure that's what people should be 
trying to do. 

In any case, that's not applicable to sparkling winemaking. 

No, not at all. 

That's basically what I wanted to know. 


Classic Methods/Classic Varieties Society 

Hicke: Before I forget, I want to ask you about the CMCV [Classic 

Methods/Classic Varieties] Society. How was it organized, and 
what are you doing? 

Wright: I believe that wine consumers buy wine in part by brand, but 
not to the same extent that they would buy soap suds or other 
things . One of the beauties of wine is that it does have so 
many ramifications of color, flavor, taste, smells, and all 
this, that even though you might love Clos du Val's Cabernet, 
you're not going to drink that every time you have a bottle of 
wine. In fact, you're not even going to drink Cabernet 
Sauvignon every time you have a bottle of wine. Sparkling 
wines and champagnes are more brand oriented. People tend to 
be less risk taking when it comes to champagne and sparkling 
wine, so there's a bit more brand loyalty there. Chandon's 
been very successful because of that, but I think we've gotten 
to the point where we have to recognize the other part of 
people's wine selection motivation, and that's what I call 
categories . 


Wright: For example, Sonoma-Cutrer [Vineyards], which is virtually 
exclusively into Chardonnay- - 1 think that's all they make; 
they may make different types or areas of Chardonnay- -has been 
a very successful brand, in a sense, and pretty well 
recognized. It gets very good distribution in restaurants and 
is pretty well recognized by that type of consumer who is 
going to buy that priced wine. Let's assume they've been 
overwhelmingly successful. The probability is that if they 
produced a Riesling from Monterey it would be a crashing 
failure, because that isn't a category that's doing anything 
in the market. So categories are at least as important if not 
more important than brands, and one has to recognize that. 

I felt that as successful as Chandon has been, with all 
these new people coming into the market we could take an 
attitude of, "Let's battle it out, "--and we will do that; it's 
competitive, very competitive- -but the best thing to do is to 
try and make the market grow. I think the best way of making 
the market grow is to try to get our story as a category 








across to the trade, the press, and the consumers. Because we 
haven't gotten the story across as a category that we- -meaning 
the producers of sparkling wine- -are using the classic 
varieties. Over the years, I think the press, the trade, and 
the consumers that count have come to recognize California 
Cabernet and California Chardonnay wines as world-class wines, 
and they haven't really recognized the sparkling wines. 
Partly it's because there's been this image of Champagne, and 
then there's everything else. 

Well, when you get to everything else, there are in fact 
some categories that have a distinctiveness that Champagne 
has, and we're one of them, I think. Those sparkling wines 
made in the coastal areas of California by wineries that are 
using Pinot noir and Chardonnay, aging the right length of 
time, and processing the grapes properly- -particularly 
pressing them properly- -are making world-class sparkling 
wines. I'd say there's no other place in the world except 
Champagne that is consistently making sparkling wines of the 
quality that we are making. But unfortunately, I don't think 
the press, the media, or the trade, much less the consumer, 
really recognize that. That's the reason for founding the 
CMCV society. 

Did you come up with the original idea? 


Then you contacted other wineries? 


I know that you are president now. 

Well, that doesn't mean anything. [laughs] I figured that in 
order to really do this, we needed a competent staff. 

As the CMCV society was getting under way and we were 
out looking for an executive director, I had a couple of 
prospects out there. Bob Finnigan just happened to call me on 
the phone and said that for a number of reasons he was looking 
to get away from the journalism point of view and more 
involved in the business parts of the wine business. His 
background, even though he's known as a wine journalisthe 
went to Harvard business school, and he was in the business 
consulting field for quite a while, so he's got a business 


I said, "Well, that's kind of interesting," and I 
explained what we were doing. He said, "Let me think about 
that," and then he came back with a great deal of enthusiasm; 
he really felt that was something he wanted to do, so we got 
that under way. 

Hicke: What are the methods you're going to use? 

Wright: A lot of them are going to be press releases and that kind of 
stuff. We have done already tastings, but much more 
controlled, not just out there pouring wine all over the 
place. We've developed some concepts about flavor profiles. 
In the fall of last year we invited the press- -key retailers, 
and restauranteurs in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San 
Francisco- -and we sat down and tasted. First of all, we 
explained some of the chemistry of champagne, CMCV wines, and 
then we selected cavas from Spain. The reason for that is 
that cava, which is Spanish m&thode champenoLse sparkling 
wine, does have kind of a set of rules. They do use 
particular grapes, and therefore one would expect them to have 
a particular style. Style is a bad word, because we like to 
use style when we're talking about differences among, let's 
say, ourselves or among styles of Moet versus Pommery and Paul 
Roget, et cetera. So I think it's more "flavor profile" 

I think one of the advantages of French Champagne to a 
consumer is that unless you are unlucky enough to get a bad 
bottle, which can always happen- -particularly if you are 
outside of France and are not dealing with Champagnes that are 
made by co-ops and small producers but are dealing with the 
great brands of Champagne, there is going to be an underlying 
flavor profile no matter what the brand is. 

Hicke: A consistent--? 

Wright: A consistent flavor profile that is very identified with 
Champagne, and it's probably more true than for any other 
world-class wine, because they get their grapes all from the 
same place, and they're all blends. There are stylistic 
differences, there's no doubt about it, but there is an 
underlying flavor profile. 

Our winemakers from the various members started tasting 
Champagne, CMCV wines, and cavas with the aroma flavor wheel 
type of thing. We simplified that into fewer characteristics 


that we can plot on a graph, and we do come out with very 
distinctive different profiles as shown graphically. It so 
happens that the CMCV profile is probably closer to the 
Champagne profile than the cava profile, but we're not trying 
to make quality judgments by any of these; we're just saying 
this is what they're like. The beauty of all three of them, 
actually, is that as a consumer, if you buy a cava or a CMCV 
wine or a Champagne, chances are you are going to get a 
profile- -a flavor profile, I call it- -that's fairly 
predictable. Whereas for a lot of things with bubbles in the 
world, you don't know what the hell they're going to taste 

We spent last fall getting that point across to people 
in various markets with, I would say, a considerable degree of 
success in terms of their recognition that, "Gee, these things 
really do exist." There are some misconceptions, like some 
people think Champagne is dryer, and it isn't. In fact, CMCV 
wines are a bit dryer. That's not to say it's either good or 
bad; that's just to say that our wines balance better that 

We're carrying that forward, so we're doing that. We 
think wine judges need a lot of guidance when it comes to 
sparkling wine, because they've not been brought up on 
sparkling wine and are looking for the wrong things very often 
when they're judging sparkling wines. We hope to have a 
seminar in San Francisco- -we' re organizing that nowpurely 
for wine judges who are going to judge at the San Francisco 
Wine Fair. That's a very prestigious group with good palates. 
We're not complaining about their palates, but we do think 
they could use some background on what constitutes quality 
characteristics in sparkling wine and why it is different. So 
we're going to do some really fun things like taste a 
sparkling wine where we've debubbled it, against when it has 
bubbles, to show what happens with bubbles. 

We can do that better as the CMCV, I think, than we can 
individually, because if we bring wine writers and judges into 
Chandon--and of course they come here all the time- -I think 
they always have an underlying feeling that we've got our own 
axe to grind. Not that they don't treat us seriously, but I 
think there's an underlying thinking, "What point are they 
trying to get across?" Whereas as a group I think we're more 
believable . 


The beauty of this particular group is that there is 
very little disagreement about what constitutes quality and 
what you do to make a quality sparkling wine. If you put 
together a group of Cabernet producers, I think there would be 
a lot of difference of opinion. [laughs] So in that sense 
it's fairly easy to do. 

Hicke: Do you plan to identify with the CMCV? 

Wright: Yes. We've got a logo, and we're going to put it on our foil. 
It's going to take some time. You know, Champagne people have 
been at it for a couple hundred years, so we've got to have 
some patience here. But I think it's got to be done. 

Difference in Perspective of Large and Small Wineries 

Hicke: Let me ask you about the Wine Institute and the split between 
the small and large wineries. Were you involved in that? 

Wright: No, only in a peripheral way. I think it's really tragic. 

It's a really serious thing that's occurring, and it seems to 
be getting worse, too --this apparent split between small and 
large. Then there's the whole question of what is small and 
what is large. Some of these people who present themselves as 
family winemakers are not small wineries at all. I think the 
Wine Institute in the past has attempted to do things for 
which it is not terribly skilled in terms of its background, 
particularly in some of the public relations areas, et cetera. 
On the other hand, I don't think there's a substitute for the 
Wine Institute as a spokesperson for California wines in 
general and certainly in terms of governmental regulations, 
trade relations, and all this. There's just no substitute for 
the skills that John De Luca has and the staff and what 
they've done over the years. 

I think they might not all be small winemakers, but 
they're small-minded people. By nit-picking away at certain 
things, all they're succeeding in doing is creating a disarray 
at a time when we just don't need that. The first thing that 
came in when I was on the Wine Commission, was the small 
winemakers said, "We're paying more for dues than the big 
people are." Sure, they're paying more because their grapes 
cost more. We do, too, actually. But what they pay as a 
percentage of the value of their product is very much less 


than what Gallo is paying or The Wine Group and so forth, 
that didn't satisfy them, no, no, no, so all sorts of 
concessions were made to them. 


It isn't as if all the small winemakers are united; it's 
just a few in there and most of them aren't small 
winemakers- -who just have some beef. Basically what they're 
trying to get is some sort of a preferential advantage , and 
they're playing this up. Apparently, as of today they're in 
Sacramento trying to get the sparkling wine tax in California 
raised from thirty cents to forty cents, but with small 
sparkling wine producers being exempt from this. To what end? 
Very definitely it's to keep their taxes down, because they 
don't make sparkling wine. 

Hicke: They see that the tax is going to be raised somewhere, so-- 

Wright: Right. Traditionally we have paid thirty cents a gallon in 
California versus one cent a gallon for table wine. 

Hicke: Yes, why is that? Why is sparkling wine taxed so much more? 

Wright: Because at one time it was considered a luxury product and had 
a luxury tax on it. 

That isn't really very helpful on their part, and 
they're playing this role, "We're small, old, humble, country, 
family winemakers." As somebody said to me on Friday at a 
symposium in San Francisco, "You mean limited partners are 
part of the family?" In most cases, it's just that they're 
not structured as a corporation, but they certainly don't act 
like and aren't run just by a little, old family by any means. 
Plus, there are some family -owned companies in this business 
that are very, very large- -Gallo , Sutter Home, Robert Mondavi; 
by no means is the wine business dominated by corporations. 

It isn't a matter of corporate versus family owned. I 
don't really know what it is, other than the fact that there 
are a few people out there, some of whom genuinely feel they 
are small, and therefore their interests aren't being properly 
represented. If that's true, they don't have much of a beef, 
when you really look at who pays what dues and who gets what 
sorts of services. I think another part is very politically 
oriented types of people who are just trying to get something 
for nothing, and that really annoys me. 


Hicke: So there isn't any great dividing line, but maybe some special 
interests that feel they are unhappy? 

Wright: Yes. It's almost a case -by-case basis. Barry Sterling of 

Iron Horse, for example, saw me on Friday. He said, "Gee, do 
you know any of the political people in Napa?" I said, "Sort 
of. I know Mike Thompson." He said, "Would you please get to 
him? This is really ridiculous, what's going on. I , of 
course, qualify under this because I only make so many gallons 
a year, but this is absolutely crazy. It's tearing the 
industry apart." And there are a lot of small wineries like 
Barry's that are in total agreement with that, but there are a 
few people, and they're not all small -- 

Hicke: Didn't Hiram Walker [Distillers] leave the Wine Institute? 

Wright: I think so. Yes, they did. So they'll get something for 
nothing. They'll get all the benefits, and they won't pay 
their dues. I don't really know what the outcome of that is. 

Hicke: There's probably no good answer, either. 

Wright: Clearly the best was when we had the Wine Commission, because 
that was mandatory, so everybody did it. That was 
unfortunately killed by this same group of people. 

Gazing Into the Crystal Ball 

Hicke: Let me just ask as a wrap-up question how you see the future 
for sparkling wine and for Domaine Chandon. 

Wright: Looking at my crystal ball, the particular climate out there 
right now is not dismal, but it's not great. Unquestionably 
there is, to the entire wine business, a challenge and a 
threat from anti-alcohol forces. I happen to believe that 
it's not really a conspiracy. I'm sure there are some real 
dyed-in-the-wool Prohibitionists out there, but I don't think 
that's a big deal. I think the biggest challenge and threat 
we have is people feeling, believing, that the consumption of 
wine says something bad about you: if you're seen drinking a 
glass of wine at lunch, there must be something wrong with 
you; it's not appropriate, proper corporate behavior. I see 
that as the most serious threat. 


Along with that I think there is a very legitimate 
concern about health, longevity, and lifestyles. The thing 
about wine is that it, as a beverage in the beverage alcohol 
spectrum, is probably more benign or less likely to be abused, 
for different reasons, than either beer or spirits. Beer 
tends to be abused because it's a young people's kind of 
thing, and they tend to be abusers of everything because 
they're young and figure they're going to live forever. I 
remember that the Black Jewish mayor of Charleston, South 
Carolina- -quite a fascinating guy- -said we could solve the 
crime problem in this country by eliminating everybody from 
the ages of twenty to twenty -eight. [laughter] Once they get 
to be thirty-five, they're not criminals anymore. And spirits 
are something else again. 

That's the good news. The bad news is that wine 
consumers are much better educated, by and large, and are at 
the upper end of the socio-economic spectrum for the most 
part. They're the ones who do recognize that lifestyle and 
how you live your life are going to affect both the quality of 
your life and the longevity of your life. They are more 
likely to be swayed by media and things like this than 
somebody in a lower socio-economic level who tends to not tune 
in on some of this. So even though we're, say, the beverage 
that's least abused, our consumers are more likely to be 
swayed by the fashion of the time, so to speak. Now, that has 
a way of coming back, too. I do think that over the longer 
term people who drink our products will recognize that 
abstinence of the product doesn't insure --in fact, it might 
even be less healthy to abstain altogether than it is to enjoy 
the product. 

That's certainly a challenge. I think the actual 
numbers that have affected us, specifically in the sparkling 
wine business, have been more the significant intake of 
champagne and sparkling wine, specifically at New Year's. I 
think that's more a "driving under the influence" influence on 
people. If they stay home, they figure, "Why pay for a bottle 
of champagne?" I think we could counteract that negative 
influence over time by more and more recognition that 
"champagne" is a wine that doesn't require a big-deal 
celebration; it's got its own flavor profile. It's a really 
nice wine to have with food, particularly lighter cuisine. 
It's always going to be a little bit of a big deal, which is 





I think the present downturn, which there definitely is 
at all levels of the sparkling wine business, is not 
necessarily a permanent, ever-declining type of problem. 
Right now the economy isn't helping, and the attitude--! don't 
think it's going to last forever, because I don't think it's 
inherent in the human psyche, but there's just a big guilt 
trip on a lot of people. You're not supposed to have any fun 
anymore; you're not supposed to be seen having any fun. 
Really! That isn't a hundred percent, but it's pretty 
pervasive in a lot of places. 

Actually, I think the future is pretty bright, but I 
don't know when it's going to get here. [laughter] It's more 
a matter of timing. It's difficult for us and for all of the 
people who make wine with any sort of aging profile, because 
we've got to look three years, four years down the road. 
Right now the present situation would say we ought to pull 
back on grapes, pull back on production, and get our inventory 
down. And we're doing a bit of that. My only concern is that 
by the time that happens, things will turn around, and then we 
won't have enough. [laughs] 

You really do need a crystal ball. 

Seeing the whole thing is impossible, so it's pretty useless 
to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the future is 
going to be like. Peter Drucker, who I think as a writer is 
still one of the great philosophers of management, always 
said, "You can't predict the future. All you can do is make 
decisions today so that you'll have a future." You've really 
got to look at that and not spend too much time trying to 
forecast things that are not predictable. 

Maybe that's a good note to end on, and I'll let you go back 
to making your decisions. 

Whatever they may be . 

Thank you very much for a fascinating and informative 
interview on Domaine Chandon and the sparkling wine industry. 

John Wright being interviewed for oral history, 1991 

Photograph by Carole Hicke 




[Date of Interview: September 11, 1991 ]## 

Hicke: Can you tell me when and where you were born? 

Maudiere: I was born in a small town in the Champagne region of France 
called Ay. It's a very short name. I was born in that small 
village after ten generations on my mother's side, and the next 
village, which is called Mareuil sur Ay, was the home of my 
father's family for eleven generations before me. 

Hicke: That's wonderful! 

Maudiere: There is an exception. One of my great grandfathers brought a 
fiancee from Vienna, and this is the only foreign intrusion in 
the family. 

Hicke: And you grew up right around there? 

Maudiere: I grew up in Ay until I was nine years old. Then I went to 

Epernay, which is less than a mile from Ay. I went to secondary 
school there, and then my family moved to Rheims, where I 
studied at the university. Then at Dijon and Beaune I studied 
viticulture and enology, and microbiology in Paris. 

Hicke: Then where did you go? 

Maudiere: My first job was in Epernay at a Champagne house whose name was 
Mercier. Mercier merged with Moet & Chandon, and I became one 
of the Champagne makers of Moet & Chandon. 

Hicke: What were you doing for Moet & Chandon? 


Maudiere: I've been the enologist, taking care of the winemaking at Moet & 
Chandon. I was lucky to come to California when our president 
had the idea of creating a second winery out of Epernay. The 
first one had been created in Argentina something like fifteen 
or twenty years before [the one in] California. That was the 
first experience we had in a foreign country, and then we 
created Domaine Chandon here in '73. Since then we have been 

Hicke: What did you think of the idea when you first heard about it? 

Maudiere: I thought it was a very good idea. When we went to Argentina it 
was for different reasons. We went there because in Argentina, 
Champagne had 1,200 percent tax, so nobody was able to buy a 
bottle of Champagne in Argentina. Here in California we came 
for a different purpose. Champagne is a very small district 
(83,00 acres), and the appellation controlee [highest rank in 
categories of French wine] does not give to the Champagne houses 
or to the growers [the right to acquire] more than a few 
hectares every year, so we can't expand. So we decided to 
expand outside of Champagne. I think there are customers 
everywhere in the world for sparkling wine and Champagne, and we 
wanted to export our knowledge in Champagne making. That's why 
I was sent here to create, generate, Domaine Chandon. 

Edmond Maudiere 
ca. 1990 



First Responsibilities 

Hicke: What was your specific responsibility when you came? 

Maudiere: My responsibility was, first of all, finding the right grapes. 
I have to say that I never tried to imitate what we were making 
in Champagne; I wanted to make the best sparkling wine here. I 
wasn't sure that the best grapes were the same ones that we used 
in our country. 

Hicke : Would that be a difference of terroir? 

Maudiere: Everything is different. First, the position- -south, on the 
parallel [latitude] that goes to southern Madrid in Spain, so 
it's much warmer; it seemed to be much warmer, but in fact it is 
not. I will explain to you why. There is more light here, and 
the soil is not the same. We have here microclimates, but they 
are different from the ones in Champagne. The rainfall here is 
not the same; it's the same amount, but it doesn't fall for 
seven or eight months like it does in Champagne. Here it falls 
between November and March, so it's concentrated in a few 
months. And the humidity is not the same. We have greater 
humidity at night than in Champagne, but during the day it's 
very dry. So it's not the same balance. 

The outside temperature is mostly the same; if you add the 
nighttime temperatures and the daytime temperatures, the average 
is the same. It's funny, but it's not distributed the same way. 
In Champagne, for example, we have temperatures just now- -I 
called yesterday- -of around ninety degrees during the day. 
Normally it doesn't cool off at night; it stays around eighty- 


five. But here, when we have the same daytime temperature, we 
have much cooler nights than in Champagne. 

Hicke: The fog? 

Maudiere: The fog, the humiditywhich helps; it allows the vines to live 
in great shape. When you see the color of the leaves, you know. 
We don't even need irrigation; people here in Yountville have 
beautiful vineyards, and many of them are not irrigated. Vines 
are the strongest plants in the world, so they find moisture 
deep in the ground if they need it. In Algeria, I have seen 
vine roots thirty meters long that's roughly a hundred feet 
long- -for finding some moisture, even a drop. The tendency here 
has been to irrigate to get bigger crops, but we could avoid it. 

Hicke: We may have to in the future [referring to present five-year 
dought in California] . 

Maudiere: Yes. We don't need those big crops; we need good crops. With 
any fruit, like pears or apples or any others, you have the 
[given] potential for a crop. The quality of the fruit divides 
the basic potential. So if you have a big crop, the fruits are 
less fruity, have less sugar, less of any element. If you have 
less fruit, they are better. The vines are the same as any 
fruit tree; so when you irrigate to produce bigger crops, they 
are not as good as they would be if they were smaller. 

Grape Varieties 

Hicke: How did you decide what grapes to plant? 

Maudiere: I tested lots of still wines on the market, and I found that 
Chardonnay was very good and Pinot Noir was also very good. 
There was some Pinot blanc [grown] here in the valley, just a 
few acres. We had Pinot blanc Champagne fifty or sixty years 
ago, and it disappeared because it is a vine very sensitive to 
frost, and it doesn't live well in very cold climates. I was 
very happy to rediscover the Pinot blanc. 

In the beginning in my experiments I used Pinot noir, 
Chardonnay, and Pinot blanc. It gave us the real base for the 
future of Domaine Chandon. 


Hicke: Where did you find the Pinot blanc? 

Maudiere: In the valley. There was a small vineyard called Lyncrest, 
above St. Helena on the west side. There were two or three 
acres, maximum four acres, of Pinot blanc, and that's where we 
got our wood. When we grafted the first vines, we grafted Pinot 
blanc from Lyncrest. We grafted something like two hundred 
acres of Pinot blanc, because we were able to [easily] find 
Chardonnay and Pinot noir, and I wanted to have the Pinot blanc. 

Hicke: Is that similar to the Ugni blanc or the Folle blanche? 

Maudiere: No. It's not the same family, but it's close to the Chardonnay. 
But it has a different taste. 

Hicke: What does it add? 

Maudiere: It has what I call a middle body. It's a very protein-rich 

wine, and we need all the forms of colloids in a sparkling wine. 
First of all, the yeast in the second fermentation need 
proteins. It's the support of the bubbles, too. It gives what 
we call superficial tension to the wine. It keeps the beautiful 
crown of foam. If you destroy the proteins by wrong 
vinif ication, you don't have bubbles and you do not have that 
crown of white foam on the glass. 

Hicke: It sounds like a matter of chemistry or microbiology. 

Maudiere: Yes, it's microbiology. More than any other wine where you have 
second fermentation, you have to be very precise and use natural 
yeast that has been selected and grown and acclimated to the 
wine, to the pressure and to the temperature. 

Hicke: What kind of yeast do you use? 

Maudiere: We use Oviformis bayanus for different reasons. Bayanus is a 
yeast which supports high pressure, cool temperatures, and is 
very clean. I mean, the yeast doesn't have to give any taste, 
People are confused; most of the time they think that yeast 
brings a taste or an aroma to the wine. That's wrong. 

Hicke: They think of it as being like yeast in bread? 


Maudiere: Yes, but that's wrong. If yeast brings any taste or strong 

aroma, it's the wrong yeast. You have to taste wine and nothing 
else. That's what bayanus brings- -clean fermentation, and it's 
a big yeast. It's twice as big as our regular Oviformis. When 
you have to have a second fermentation in the bottle, it's 
heavy, and for riddling the bottle, it slides faster than any 
other one . 

Hicke : Another advantage . 

Building the Winery 

Hicke: [walking out the door of the new offices and heading for the 
winery] Did you have anything to do with the building of the 

Maudiere: Yes. My mother's father was an architect, and my mother wanted 
me to be an architect. For three years I went to the [Ecole 
des] Beaux Arts and studied architecture, but only for a few 
hours a day during my secondary school, from five to eight p.m. 
every day. I like architecture, and I like to design and make 
drawings. The architects who were in charge of conceiving the 
building [used] a couple of my ideas, such as the idea of a Y 
shape . 

Hicke: Why was that? 

Maudiere: Because you can expand any branch of the Y. One branch can be 
the tank room, a cellar; another can be the riddling area, the 
platform, and above you have the disgorging lines; and the 
warehouse. As you get bigger and bigger, just expand any 
branch. In the middle of the three branches, you put the 
offices and lab. But the environmentalists didn't like the 
idea. They wanted us to be lower than the hill which is behind 
the building, so the Y became a round shape. Two branches were 
bent, making a long curve, and the office was one branch of the 
Y. That's essentially the shape of the building. 

One thing was very surprising for me: we got all the 
stones from the ground here. One man, a hippie, with a horse 
extracted all the stones you see in the walls. 

Hicke: From your own land here? 

Edmond Maudiere in the fifty -four 
kilometers of tunnels that store Champagne 
under the town of Epernay, Champagne, 
France. 1992. 


Maudiere: Yes, from our own land. The thing that surprised me was the 
fact that we built the walls flat on the ground. You put a 
layer of sand on the ground, build the stone wall flat on the 
sand, then iron bars, and then you put on concrete. After four 
weeks, when it's solid, you take a crane and lift the walls. 
Suddenly, in one day, all the walls were up. Starting from the 
flat land, suddenly the appearance of a building in one day. 
Due to the risk of earthquakes, we couldn't have those beautiful 
stone walls [put up vertically before the concrete was poured] 
in case of an earthquake happening during the four weeks before 
the concrete was solid. So we thought of the idea of pouring 
the concrete on the back of the stones [while they were lying on 
the ground] . 

Hicke: You probably don't have to worry about earthquakes in Champagne. 
Maudiere: No, not at all. . 

Hicke: Are there other wineries that you have seen that were designed 
in this Y shape? 

Maudiere: No. 

Hicke: This was your own idea? 

Maudiere: It was my idea. The arches are made in the shape of our cellars 
in Epernay. They are the same five meters by five meters- -about 
fifteen feet by fifteen feet- -as the cellars of Epernay. 

Hicke: They are so beautiful, as well as having a historical reference. 

Maudiere: I'm especially happy with the wood. 

Hicke: What kind of wood is this? 

Maudiere: I think it's pine. 

When we founded Domaine Chandon, there was no local 
history, so we decided to bring a few artifacts from Champagne 
to connect Domaine Chandon and Moet & Chandon. We brought this 

tunnels under Epernay are enormous. Moet & Chandon alone owns 
some 54 kilometers of cellars storing 114 million bottles of Champagne. 
Fortunately, there are no earthquakes. 


old press, which is more than 250 years old. [Points to old 
press in courtyard. ] 

Hicke: It's really beautiful. What kind of wood is that? 

Maudiere: It's oak. It's the ancestor of the presses we use today. When 
I found it, the vintner behind it was still pressing the grapes 
on it. That was approximately twenty- five years ago. He didn't 
want to sell it. He said, "No, I'm using it." So I found a 
used, modern press, and he was so happy. He said, "Oh, good, a 
modern press," so I got it just by exchanging it for a used 
press . 

Hicke: It adds so much interest and beauty to the courtyard. 

Maudiere: There are other artifacts that make a kind of museum that I 
brought from our museum in Epernay. 

Hicke: That's nice, because it establishes the ties between Champagne 
and Napa. 

Maudiere: That's right. 

In the Winery 

Hicke: [inside the winery] My first question is why the tanks are 
horizontal . 

Maudiere: It's an interesting one. We've done experiments on horizontal 
and vertical tanks. In blind tastings we always pick the 
horizontal tanks. There is a scientific explanation for that. 
We always use the same diameter, roughly a ten- foot diameter. 
You can have a tank of fifty thousand liters or a hundred 
thousand liters or a hundred fifty thousand liters, and you 
always have the same diameter, which means they always come out 
at the same temperature. When you have a vertical tank, the 
calories are added [toward the top], and with the same 
capacityfor example, a hundred thousand liter tank would be 
forty feet high, so you need more refrigeration for the same 
capacity in a vertical tank than in a horizontal tank. 

Hicke: Because it gets warmer the higher it is? 


Maudiere: Yes. Which means that the fermentation is not as consistent as 
in a horizontal tank. 

Hicke: So these help maintain the consistency? 

Maudiere: The consistency, the regularity of fermentation. How can I 

explain it? Fermentation starts at the bottom, where most of 
the yeast we inoculate settles for a short while. Then the 
fermentation rises vertically, and convection- -[ indicates with 
his hands that fermentation rises and circles outward and 
downward] . 

Hicke: They spread out at the top and go around? 

Maudiere: Automatically, constantly. They don't stop blending, so it's 
very consistent. 

Hicke: That doesn't happen if the tank is vertical? 

Maudiere: If the tank is vertical, the convection takes place only in the 
upper part. I have been inspired by the breweries. They always 
use horizontal tanks, and they have a very precise fermentation. 

Hicke: You can actually taste the difference? 

Maudiere: Oh, yes. 

Hicke: I never thought about the breweries using horizontal tanks. 

Maudiere: That's why vertical tanks are used for quick fermentation. 

Hicke: Is this the only place where horizontal tanks are used? 

Maudiere: No, I used horizontal tanks at Mercier. That's where I did all 
the research on horizontal tanks. I don't know about any other 
places . 

Hicke: How about the winery in Australia? 

Maudiere: No, because it's very small. We have a few vertical tanks, but 
it's a small winery compared to here. In Australia there are 
only about fourteen and a half million people, so the market is 
very small. There are just two big cities, and that's 


[walking through the winery] It always smells so good in here. 


Maudiere: The fermentation started a few days ago, and it smells 

wonderful. I've been through fermentation in Argentina, Brazil, 
and Australia, but [here] this is the right time of the year. 
When you are south of the equator and harvest in February or 
March, it's like being in another world. It's not the same. 
Here it's close to fall, and the smell is wonderful, especially 
this year. 

Hicke: Why this year? 

Maudiere: It's probably due to the long ripening. 

Hicke: You were just talking about the cleanness and the delicacy. 

Maudiere: Yes, the cleanness and the delicacy of the aroma during 

fermentation. I don't say it's like Champagne, but it's the 
kind of weather we normally have in Champagne- -long ripening, 
much longer than here. [This year] it's not the same, but it's 

We're right in the middle of the Pinot noir and the 
Chardonnay [grapes]. We received today Chardonnay [looking at 
chalk board] . 

Hicke: You buy grapes? 

Maudiere: Yes, we buy grapes. I was talking to [John] Trefethen, and he 
was the first one to sell grapes to us for several years. Our 
vine grapes were just planted, and they didn't produce grapes 
for four years. So we bought grapes starting in '73- -good 
ones- -and the first one to sell us grapes was Trefethen. We 
still have contracts with him. 

There is a reason for having growers. I always compare 
making sparkling wine or champagne with painting. You can paint 
with the four basic colors, you can blend them and mix them to 
make the colors you have in your mind. Making champagne is the 
same. -You can have four vineyards- -because we use four 
varieties- -or three vineyards, and blend them, but it is very 
difficult. You can blend them, but still you don't get 
precisely what you are expecting. If you have ten vineyards it 
makes things easier, and if you have twenty it's even easier. 
The wine is very complex, and the complexity is an addition to 
the taste. 



When you have, like we do, four main vineyards- -Yountville , 
Carneros, Mt. Veeder, and Dos Rios--we could produce the bottles 
that we produce, but it would take eight or ten weeks of 
blending. But having additional growers who are not located in 
the same regionsame spot, same entity, same soil gives us all 
the complexity we need, so when we blend it's easier. 

Do you know the characteristics of each different grape so that 
you know what you want? 

Maudiere: Yes. 

Hicke: You say, "I need some more from Trefethen," or, "I need some 
more from Mt . Veeder"? 

Maudiere: Yes. Here [looking at chart] we have a list of the shipments 

from other vineyards today [showing grapes] for Domaine Chandon. 

[reads list] Carneros, planted in '89; Carneros, planted in 
1983; and Mt. Veeder, which was planted in '84. But we don't 
call it '84; the number you see on the list is the number of the 
piece [of land]. At Carneros we have several big pieces, and 
they are listed by the dates when they were planted- -' 89 , '83. 
At Mt. Veeder it's older vineyard. So that's what we have today 
[in grape shipments]. 

Hicke: I see. It's all up there on the chart. 

Maudiere: When we started we had no winery. It was something like 

experiments in a garage --John Wright's garage on Mt. Veeder 
[referring to new businesses such as in electronics that started 
"in someone's garage"]. John Wright had a piece of vineyard 
himself. There was free land surrounding the place where he 
had his vineyard, so the first piece of land we bought was on 
Mt. Veeder. I started my experimentations in a garage. There 
were a few bottles and several blends. It was an office, a 
cellar, the lab. 

Then when we had the contracts with Trefethen we had a 
beautiful old winery which hadn't been used since Prohibition. 
We had. an agreement. They didn't rent the winery to us; they 
said, "Use it; put some concrete on the ground, bring in the 
electricity and water, and you can use it for several years." 
We used it until '76, and it gave us the opportunity to work on 
the architecture of this winery buying tanks, preparing 
everything perfectly. It was very nice. 


A very funny thing: there was no cellar. Where to put the 
bottles? We ended up with 200,000 bottles on the second floor. 
Some people from ray company came and I said, "Shall we go to the 
cellar?" Where could I mean? They said, "Where is your 
cellar?" I said, "On the first floor." 

Hicke: Upstairs! 

Maudiere: Yes, that's what we call the first floor [in Europe]. 

Hicke: I bet they were really shocked. 

Maudiere: Oh, yes. We had air conditioning, the temperature was perfect- - 
ten degrees Celsius night and day. 

These [offering a grape to taste] are the Pinot noirs. 
Sweet and good. 

Hicke: They're wonderful. 

Maudiere: I'm going to talk again about Trefethen. In Champagne we pick 
grapes by hand, like those [Pinot noir grapes] have been picked 
by hand. At Trefethen they had the first harvester machine, so 
we experimented with machine picking. I was not very satisfied 
by the juice, which was pink colored. In Champagne, when we 
have a hot year we pick very early in the morning, between five 
a.m. and ten a.m., and then we stop. When the grapes are cold, 
the cells of the skin don't open, so the color stays in the skin 
and the juice is not colored. So I said we should try picking 
the grapes at night, and so we [here] were the first to pick by 
machine at night. Since then we have been picking at night. 

Hicke: And now everybody is doing it. 

Maudiere: And now everybody does it. 

Hicke: That's quite an important innovation. 

Maudiere: That was the first time that machine harvesting was done at 

night.. We wait for the right temperature, and then we start the 
machines . 

Hicke: Do you have to have lights? 

Maudiere: Yes, and we have a machine driver, an assistant, a tractor 
driver- -there are four people working with the machine, and 


that's it. Again, that's due to the help of Trefethen. They 
have been very important in our development. 

Hicke: I wanted to ask you about the Very Large Machine [VLM] , too, and 
the riddling. I know that Moet & Chandon didn't think that 
large amounts of riddling could be handled here. 

Maudiere: In Champagne people used small machines- -small compared to very 
large ones. We tried the same machines, and I wasn't satisfied 
at all, because the smaller machines work very slowly. They 
have an electric motor which, when it stops, takes time, because 
it's a heavy load of five hundred bottles. At the end of an 
axle, that's a heavy load. I said it was too slow. You know, 
when you riddle a bottle, the hand is giving a great thrust, a 
quarter of a turn, and stops the bottle. I compare it to a 
glass of water with powdered sugar. When you turn the glass 
slowly, the sugar follows the glass; if you turn it fast, the 
sugar stays in the same position. In riddling it's the same 
thing. If you turn it fast- -that's why the riddler goes very 
fast. They turn, and they stop the bottle. The sediment stays 
in the same position, but the bottle [itself] turns around the 
sediment. That's what makes the sediment slide in the glass, 
[see explanation on page 138a] 

Hicke: So you don't mix up the sediment? 

Maudiere: No, you don't mix up the sediment. With the small machines, the 
movement was too slow, just like turning the glass of water with 
sugar [slowly] makes the sugar turn with the glass. So I have 
been adding- -compensating for this inconvenience- -bentonite , but 
the bentonite has an effect on foam- -on the ring [at the top of 
the glass of sparkling wine after it's poured]. So I said, "No, 
we should find a way to do exactly what the hand does." 

The vice president of production here was a former 
aeronautic engineer, and I asked him if there was a way. He 
said there was a way to send an electric current in the other 
direction, and we stopped the [turn], but we broke the machines. 
We broke several French machines; the axle was broken, and it 
was five hundred dollars every time. I said, "Now what do we 
do? We should have a perfect gyroscope." 

He worked several months , and he came back one morning and 
said, "I have an idea. If you want to have a perfect gyroscope, 
you have to put more than five hundred bottles [in a machine]. 
What do you think of several bins?" I said, "Ooh, that's big," 
because it would be a minimum of eight bins, and that's four 










thousand bottles. He agreed it was big. It gave birth to the 
VLMs , which are perfect, which have precisely the same effect as 
the hand. What we have done is send an electric current, not 
only to stop but to go the other way. It can be fifty times a 
second. It's even more efficient than by hand. 

Weren't you afraid to try that many bottles the first time? 

You can handle it with 

No, because it was so well balanced, 
your hands- -four thousand bottles. 

Really. And you didn't lose any? 

No, we didn't lose any, and we didn't have to use bentonite in 
the bottle. I don't like to use any addition in a wine; I want 
to keep the wine pure, 100 percent wine. You have to 
concentrate a little more during the harvest, taking care of the 
grapes, knowing what they are going to do, how they can ferment, 
what kind of wine they will make; and using different 
temperatures- -settling longer or at different temperatures. [If 
you do these things] you can handle the wine without using 
additions of chemicals, [which is important] especially now, as 
people are very aware of elements of the wine. They have to be 
very pure. You have to concentrate on the handling of the 
grapes every year for fifteen days or three weeks during the 
harvest, but it pays. 

Are these machines in use anywhere else? 
Yes, I think so, because there is no patent. 
That's too bad. 

Well, I think if it can help others--. 
That's very generous. 

I think we have to share our knowledge. We have no secrets. 
Even competitors have free access to everything. It's the best 
way. You don't progress if you are alone; you have to exchange 
and to listen to what the others say. You can have trouble, 
[and if you are] using the same machines, they can tell you all 
their troubles; we talk and exchange, and we progress, all of 

When I came here to the valley, I visited all of the 
wineries and the few sparkling wine wineries, and I consulted 



[made suggestions for] them. They said, "Why are you consulting 
[for] us? And you don't even ask for money." I said, "Because 
if you produce bad sparkling wine, it will be a bad Napa Valley 
sparkling wine. Nobody will say it's a specific winery name, 
but all of us will suffer." They said, "Oh, that's a different 
approach." They had never heard that before. I have become 
very good friends with my colleagues in other wineries because I 
was giving them advice on the way they were making wine or 
handling their bottles or riddling them. 

I think you've brought not only sparkling wine but a very 
helpful philosophy to the valley. 

Maudiere: Yes. 


Hicke: I know you were responsible for all of the equipment as well as 
the architecture here at Domaine Chandon. What other equipment 
did you bring in? 

Maudiere: There was no special equipment. Most of it was equipment that 
we have been using in Champagne for years. What I brought here 
was a different conception of winemaking, first of all. We are 
not in Champagne, where we are protected by the appellation 
contrdlee. Here there is no appellation. We are free to do 
anything. In Champagne you are surrounded by so many laws on 
everything- -on planting, the type of rootstock, the number of 
vines per acre, the crop per hectare, the pressing. Here we are 

I said, "This is a very good thing." It's what I would 
like to have in Champagne. It's the possibility of changing 
every year, because years are never the same. Grapes are 
juicier or drier, or they have thicker skins or more color. So 
instead of judging by the weight and extracting 66.66 percent- - 
you put one metric ton on the press and extract 66.66 liters -- 
with no chance whatever [to vary that] from year to year. But 
here, if [the grapes] are juicierwe have what we call the 
"free run." You press very carefully, with very light pressure, 
and extract the "free run." You can extract in Champagne 50 
percent in the first extraction. Here, depending on the year, 
we extract 40 percent, 45 percent, 52 percent. We are able to 
control everything with precision. For example, what I have 









done here- -I wanted to do it in Champagne, but I had no right to 
do it, so here I have done it with great success. 

We have sold what we call the taille, the press wine. We 
press roughly 50 percent or 45, 48 percent. We extract then 
2 percent, which is called the first press, or the premiere 
taille in French. We don't extract the rest of the wine on 
sparkling wine presses; we extract the rest of the juice on a 
continuous press, and we sell the juice in bulk. So we have no 
waste of the same juice, which is less good than "free run," 
which is being used in a blend. No waste. You see the tank 
trucks every day here. 

They're taking the bulk? 

Yes, taking the bulk juice at the end of the pressing, 
happy to be here, with this way of doing it. 

I 'm so 

In Champagne do you make a different style or kind of wine for 
export than you do for local consumption? 

No, not at Moet. Some do, but we don't. It is the same cuv6e, 
so you can find the same brut imperial vintage in the French 
market, in the German market, in the Swiss market, in the 
English market, in the American market, or in the Japanese 

How do you differentiate the French Moet & Chandon Champagne 
from the Domaine Chandon sparkling wine for marketing? 

First of all, they don't taste the same. Also, I was aware from 
the very beginning--! told you I did not want to make a copy of 
Moet. There is a possibility of making a copy, but an imitation 
is always an imitation. So all the qualities of Napa made a 
different product. I insisted that all the blends that I've 
made up to now have a different characteristicwith Napa really 
showing in the cuvee . 

So you really set out to make a Napa Valley wine. 

Yes, two different products. I have friends in San Francisco 
who have both cuvees, and they don't use the Moet at the same 
time- -for the same purposes --as Domaine Chandon. So we are not 
competitors. First of all, there is a price difference, which 
is very important. We sell Domaine Chandon for about thirteen 
dollars a bottle, and Moet is sold for thirty dollars. 


If I had made an imitation, the imitation could have been 
better than the Moet, so we would have sold Domaine Chandon and 
no Moet. The other way around, it could have been, "Oh, that's 
a poor imitation of Moet." People recognize that Domaine 
Chandon is very good and Moet is good, but for different 
occasions. They are two different wines. Another thing: I 
made a Blanc de Noirs, which is not made in Champagne. 

Hicke: Oh, really? 

Maudiere: Well, some do. After coming to Napa, they discovered the Blanc 
de Noirs. [laughs] It was 100 percent Pinot noir when I made 
it for the first time and had some of what we called blush. It 
was the first use of the word "blush" for wine. Now it's highly 
in use. 

There was what we call an oeil de perdrix [eye of the 
partridge- -pink] , In Champagne, when the Pinot noir cuvee is 
slightly pink or amber, we call it an oeil. I don't know where 
that comes from. When I made the first Blanc de Noirs, we had a 
visit from the president of Moet, and I wanted him to taste the 
still wine- -the cuvee- -ready to be bottled. He said, "Oh, it's 
an oeil." I said I did it because I liked the color, and he 
said, "You're not going to sell one bottle in the American 
market. They don't like pink wine." I said, "This is not pink 
wine." John Wright was there, and I said, "Anyway, you are not 
here to give me your consent. You sent me to Napa to produce 
something-- " I'm very specific with him. So he said, "Okay, 
okay." [laughter] John Wright later said, "Oh, you were so 
strong." And since then, it has been a success, you know- -Blanc 
de Noirs, especially with people coming from Champagne. 

Maudiere: I was saying that it has been a success. We started with it 

being 10 percent of our sales, then it became 20 percent, 30 and 
35 percent. People from Champagne come here and buy cases of 
Blanc de Noirs. I was very proud of our innovation. 

Hicke: Indeed, to get people from Champagne to come here and take it 


The Very Large Machines: Riddling 

Maudiere: I want to go to the VLMs . [tape off while walking through the 
winery to the riddling machine area] 

Hicke: How many of these VLMs do you have? 

Maudiere: Thirty- two. We could riddle eight million bottles a year. 

Hicke: How many do you do? 

Maudiere: A little more than five million. 

Hicke: That's a lot. 

Maudiere: It is a lot. 

That [indicates] is the machine. [demonstrates that it can 
be moved easily by hand because of the delicate balance]. It's 
connected to the tension. A little less than four thousand 
bottles, because the bins are not precisely four thousand. Ah, 
the numbers are here [looking at posted numbers]. It's 3,840 
bottles in each. 

Hicke: It's all done by computer? 

Maudiere: Yes. [reads from computer printout] We are on program number 
twelve. It's the same cuvee. This one was step number seven; 
this one was step number eighteen. Step number eighteen has 
been loaded the same day. The angle, twelve, and the time. So 
we know that it was 8:32.6. Anyone can start at any time. 
Several times a day- -normally two times, sometimes three times a 
day- -it shakes, turns, shakes, and gives the angle. 

Hicke: It's just programmed to do that automatically? 

Maudiere: Yes, automatically. Every week we do 160,280 bottles. I said 
thirty- two, but it's forty -two VLMs now. 

Hicke: What kind of maintenance is required? 

Maudiere: Nothing. No maintenance. It's greased once a year. Two small 
engines, each the same size and same power as the small, five- 
hundred-bottle machine. 

This is the motor, one of them. 


Hicke: Oh, it's tiny. It looks about the size of a motorboat. 

Maudiere: Yes, and the other one is even smaller. It's in the back. 

[walks around to the back] . Here is the second motor in the 

Hicke: It is even smaller. That's amazing. 

Maudiere: It works perfectly. [speaking to riddler] Do you have a bottle 
of sur lattest 

Riddler: You want a bottle before we put it in the machines? 

Maudiere: This one, just at the beginning. It has been riddled four or 
five times already. 

Hicke: So each one of these [VLMs] has eight cases? 

Maudiere: Yes. 

Hicke: Full of how many bottles? 

Maudiere: Normally it's less than five hundred. 

Riddler: Four hundred and eighty bottles for each box. 

Maudiere: So multiplied by eight, it's 3,840. 

This is the yeast. See that? Dead yeast. When you shake 
the bottle, that's what happens. [holding up bottle, 
demonstrates the effect of riddling on the yeast, which slides 
into the neck of the bottle] Due to the b ay anus , it slides very 

Hicke: It's going right down into the neck. 

Maudiere: I'm not doing it very well because I'm going too fast, but 

that's what happens. At the same time it swings, turns, and is 
balanced, so the sediment is sliding without leaving those 
yeasts that are left behind. It's perfectly clear. 

Hicke: So the turn cleans one side of the bottle, and the shaking gets 
it sliding. 

Maudiere: Yes. 












Do the bottles make any difference- -the color? 

The color doesn't make a difference at that stage. It makes a 
difference later on when the bottles are behind the window in 
the sun. You know, champagne or sparkling wine or white wines 
suffer from infra-red and u.v. [ultra-violet] rays. That's why 
we have green bottles, and most of them now have minerals in the 
glassmaking which filter u.v. and infra-red light rays. 

What matters here is that if the bottle is not correctly 
made, you have a kind of orange skin inside. If you have an 
orange skin, the sediment doesn't slide as well. And we have an 
"ouch" ! We have been fighting with the glass makers to make it 
really clean inside the bottles. 

So that's a problem? 

No more, but it could happen any day. 

So you have to inspect the bottles? 

We have to inspect the bottles before bottling. 

Each bottle? 

No, not each bottle; each shipment. A quality-control 
laboratory checks the bottles. If you bottle in a bad bottle, 
you discover it's a bad bottle three years later when the 
bottles are on the riddling racks or on the shelf. 

Do the bottles ever break in there? 

Less and less, 
in the bins? 

asks riddler] Do you discover broken bottles 

Hardly ever. It used to be a problem, but now the quality of 
the glass has been a lot better. The quality-control lab keep 
on top of the glass quality all the time. They make sure 
they're getting good quality glass, and the minute they spot 
something inside of a bottle, they hold that batch of shipment. 

We return the whole shipment if one bottle is imperfect. 

Yes, because there is a danger of blowing the bottle when you 
open it or something, so it has to be a very, very good quality, 
as far as the glass itself is concerned. That includes the 
other parts, like the cap and the bidules, when they're in the 











second fermentation. From here they go to the disgorging line 
and they get the cork, labels, and the little wire caps and 
everything that goes with it. 

Another thing is, the bottle doesn't go through a lot of 
abuse, even though it's good quality glass and we trust it and 
handle it all the time. It's really good. In fact, I've seen 
cases where you get a bend where maybe the wood is warped like 
this [points out warped case]. We set it down, and maybe a 
bottle will slide out. It might fall from here [demonstrates] 
to here, and it won't blow up. It will just roll around. It 
shakes up the wine a little bit, but the bottle is good; it's 
good glass. 

And we have more than six bars- -six atmospheres- - [multiplies] at 
10 Celsius (50 F.) it's more than 7.3 atmospheres at the 
temperature of the riddling room. 


Pressure . 
at 60 F. 

That's 90 psi. Ninety at 10 Celsius, and a hundred 

Who makes the bottles? 

Owens-Illinois and a glass factory in Merced. 

There's one in Oakland; that's Owens-Illinois. They make most 
of it. Every now and then they can't keep up because of the 
demand, so they go to another source, which is Merced. 

We like to buy from two different glass factories. If anything 
happens to one factory--. I remember when we used to buy 
bottles from a Canadian glass factory, and one day they went on 
strike. We went two months without receiving one bottle, and we 
were stuck. 

It's good to have two different sources, as far as getting 

Okay, shall we go? 

See you later. 

That was great. Thanks a lot. 

Can bottles ever be recycled? 


Maudiere: No. If you recycle the bottles, they get mixed with [bottles 

from] different glass factories. Sometimes they don't have the 
same diameter, sometimes they don't have the same height, and we 
have a problem at the level of the lines. And they don't have 
the same strength; if they have been used once, we get high 
breakage. We don't recycle. 

Hicke: It's not worth it? 
Maudiere: No. 

Hicke: [looking at the area of handriddled bottles] These are riddled 
by hand here? 

Maudiere: They are riddled by hand. I like to keep a few bottles riddled 
by hand due to the risk of earthquake. If we had an earthquake, 
and we only had the bottles on the big VLMs , we would be out of 
business. [The VLMs are balanced so delicately that an 
earthquake would cause great damage . ] 

Hicke: Is this the Reserve? 

Maudiere: No, it's the same cuvee, same blend. We keep three people 
riddling, so if anything happens they are able to continue 
riddling by hand. 

Hicke: How many are riddled by hand? 

Maudiere: Oh, twenty or thirty thousand bottles. But instead of taking 
eight days on the VLMs, it takes three weeks on the riddling 
racks. It's riddled once a day here, and the VLMs can riddle 
two or three times a day, depending on the cuvee. 

Hicke: Can you taste any difference if they're riddled by hand? 

Maudiere: No. Oh, this [referring to old riddling machine] is the one 
which used to break. The axle, which is here, used to break. 

Hicke: So that's just for looks now- -an artifact? [laughs] 
Maudiere: Yes. We don't take visitors to the VLMs. 

Those [points to rack] are finished. We start with the 
bottles flat. Here, the bottles are flat [i.e., horizontal]. 
When the riddler riddles the bottles, he shakes them and lifts 


them [so that they are tipped slightly more with the neck 
downward] . 

Hicke: So they're a little more tipped each time they're riddled? 

Maudiere: Yes. And they are balanced and then finished in that vertical, 
upside-down position. 

Hicke: But the riddler has to know exactly how to do that. 

Maudiere: Yes, he takes a candle. Normally the best way for checking the 
progression of the sediment is to take a candle, one bottle, and 
he goes [makes banging sound]. This is what he does. With the 
shock, the sediment slides. 

Hicke: Helps get the sediment down. 

Maudiere: Normally we riddle fifty thousand bottles a day. 

Hicke: What? 

Maudiere: Yes. There are sixty bottles here, and you see the speed at 
which it goes. [demonstrates the riddling process] 

Hicke: Oh, yes. How long at a time can you do that? 

Maudiere: You can do that eight hours a day. It's not tiring at all. 

[continues to riddle] That's it; sixty bottles have been done in 
thirty seconds. 

Hicke: Well, I can see that it can be done. 

Maudiere: I've done this since I was little. I remember my father said, 
"If you want to have a vacation with us, you have to work every 
year." First year in the laboratory; second year with the 
barrels, which we still had then; and then in the riddling area 
with the riddlers. So I have done everything. My father said 
[at the end of the summer], "Okay, a good report, so you can 
come with us." [laughter] 

Hicke: Where did you go on your vacations? 
Maudiere: We used to go to the Cote d'Azur. 


Use of a Candle by che Riddler 

Maudiere: The riddler still uses a candle to check the turbidity of the 
Champagne in the bottle. He uses what is called the Tyndall 

He takes a bottle upside down between a lighted candle 
and his eyes. He puts his left hand around the bottle 
approximately one -third of an inch between his fingers to let 
rays of light penetrate the wine under some angle. His fingers 
produce a dark background (shadow) on which the particles 
lighted by the candle's weak light appear. Under a stronger 
electric bulb light they don't appear. That is why the 
riddlers still use a candle light. 

The examining has to be done in a dark room. 


The Vines 

Maudiere: We should go to the Visitor Center and taste three bottles in 
front of us. Do you want to taste? 

Hicke : Sure . 

Maudiere: [walking to Visitor Center; points to grapevines next to winery] 
These are planted here to show visitors the way we prune 
Champagne vines, the way we plant in Champagne- -the rows, and 
the same height. Three varieties are here. 

Hicke: Is there something different about the terracing? 

Maudiere: Oh, yes. In Champagne this is the way we plant and prune. This 
is Pinot noir. 

Hicke: Can I try one? 

Maudiere: Oh, yes, please. This is Chardonnay- -a little less acid. One 
Chardonnay is 12 grams of acidity per liter, the Pinot blanc is 
10.5. That's close, but you can taste the difference. 

Hicke: [sitting at a table in the Visitor Center] While we're waiting, 
let me ask you how the wines have changed over the years since 
you started here. 

Maudiere: First of all, there is a natural reason: the vines have aged, 
and the best wines come from older vineyards. 

[to a staffperson] I'd like to have three glasses and the 
Blanc de Noirs, Brut, and a Reserve. I'd like you to leave the 
three bottles on the table. 

Again, it's like a fruit tree; the best fruit comes from 
older trees. For the same reason there's less production, 
better concentration. When we bought the first grapes, most of 
the vineyards had been planted between '68 for the first ones to 
'70. We bought in '73, so they were not yet at their best. 

I have a good example, which is Dom Perignon. Dom Perignon 
comes from an average of thi rty- five-year-old vineyards, and 
some of them are more than fifty years old. Normally people 
replant their vineyards when they are twenty or twenty- five 
years old. 


So it means you have a better concentration. You lose some 
crop, because instead of harvesting five tons per acre, you have 
three tons per acre; but what quality. That's why I think the 
first change has been due to the aging vines. 

The second one has come from more complexity. When you 
produce a larger number of bottles, you need more grapes. So 
you buy from more vineyards in different spots, and it becomes 
more and more complex. That's the second reason why the wines 
have changed. 

The third one is because after a few years we knew more and 
more. We never totally know, but we knew more and more about 
different vineyards and about the blends --how they age, what was 
the limit of using such and such instead of another. So the 
third reason is experience. 

The fourth r-eason was the evolution of the taste of the 
customers . 

Hicke: A little education going on? 

Maudiere: Twenty years ago Americans were not used to drinking sparkling 
wine as much as they do now, and they didn't have the same 
taste. They liked sweeter sparkling wines. I don't know if 
they liked it, but they used to buy tasteless sparkling wines. 
I don't know if it was the fashion or the production that 
imposed that kind of wines, but they were colorless, tasteless, 
sweet . 

Hicke: That's why I never liked champagne, as we called it. 

Maudiere: Now they have discovered sparkling wine which has beautiful 

bubbles, tiny bubbles. At the time, most [sparkling wines] had 
big bubbles, what we called "toads' eyes" in Champagne, 
[laughter] It's a funny description, but that's what we said: 
"Oh, that's a toads' eye wine, with big, slow (blop, blop) 
bubbles . " 

Another improvement I brought here was making tiny, fast 
bubbles. They're beautiful 

Hicke: How do you make the tinier bubbles? 

Maudiere: I said I don't like to use chemicals in winemaking. So I did it 
just by saving all the proteins. In beer it's the same thing. 

Edmond Maudi&re 


Hicke: So it's the yeast, and not using bentonite, and all those 

Maudiere: We don't use bentonite, so the crown stays on the top. Look at 
that [referring to glass of sparkling wine poured at their 
table] . 

Hicke: It's really beautiful. 

Maudiere: What I brought, too, was the color. As I said, twenty years ago 
most of the sparkling wines were colorless, but it was not 
natural. This [glass before us] is the Blanc de Noirs, the one 
which is made of 100 percent black grapes. It used to be 
100 percent Pinot noir, and this one is 95 percent Pinot noir 
and 5 percent Pinot Meunier. 

Hicke: Oh, yes, it does have a little blush, although you can't see it 
because of the blue tablecloth. Did that first one that you 
made have more blush? 

Maudiere: Yes. That's why we called it Blanc de Noirs. 
Hicke: Is that eye of partridge? 

Maudiere: Yes, that's what it's called in still wines and sparkling wines 
in France, but it's not really eye of partridge; eye of 
partridge is darker than that. We call it Blanc de Noirs 
because it can vary; there are some variations year after year. 
It can be slightly darker, but I think this is the lightest 
color we've ever had. 

Hicke: Just a delicate tinge. 

Maudiere: That's what Champagne was thirty or forty years ago. The 

Champagne color was precisely that color, and now Champagne is 
more like this, because we use more and more Chardonnay. 

Hicke: There's almost no blush in this one. 

Maudiere: The color is a bit greener; slightly light golden, even on the 
green side, because the Chardonnay has a green skin, and the 
flesh is more green than yellow. 

Hicke: Which one is this one? 

Maudiere: This is the same cuvee , the same blend as the middle one, but 

it's kept five years in the cellar, so it gets darker with age. 




Oh, yes, it has much more color, 
shade, not of color. 

But it's just a difference of 

The pigments get darker and darker. If you keep a bottle of 
Champagne twenty years in your cellar, it becomes very dark 
gold. It's still clear, but it gets darker. 

Maudiere: What I do first with any wine, I smell it. I put my nose in the 
glass. In sparkling wine I like to find a delicate fruitiness. 
It doesn't have to be neutral; it has to be delicate- -a very 
good delicacy but with fruit. For example, if you smell [these 
three glasses], they have different noses. This first one is 
more like today. [sniffs the air] Oh, tobacco; somebody is 

Hicke: Shall we move? 

Maudiere: No, I can concentrate. Have you ever been in a vineyard at the 
time when it's flowering? It's so powerful, and it's so good. 
I find in this Pinot noir at the same time the vine flower and 
black current. The second is more floral. It's not vine 
flower, but floral--! don't know which flower- -and maybe some 
honey. At the same time, it's a very delicate. I like the nose 
of this one. 

This one has a funny smell, like coffee- -coffee and 

Hicke: I catch that coffee, but I would not have been able to identify 
it myself. 

Maudiere: I try to find something to put a name on my feeling. It's not 
precisely coffee; it's a kind of coffee. When I taste the base 
wines --in Epernay I tasted forty or fifty wines every morning in 
all seasons. I tried to put an image on each wine so I could 
keep them in memory. There's no way for writing what you feel, 
so you -have to think, "This one is for me more like (in Epernay) 
a black current bush." 

Hicke: So you have a picture image? 

Maudiere: I have a picture, yes. You can't taste fast. I mean, your 

first impression is the good one; you never come again to taste 
the same one when you prepare a cuvee . It takes half an hour or 










forty- five minutes, and it's done. You can test in a different 
order two days later, and you still have the image, the picture, 
in your mind, and you recognize them like you recognize a human. 
Some of them are more neutral, and you have to test them several 
times; I mean, in a week you test them two or three times. It's 
just like humans; you can meet a human several times and you 
still don't remember him. 

Hicke: Only these are much harder to remember. 

Maudiere: No; it's my job. It's not harder. When you are specialized in 
one thing, you can recognize it easily. You don't have to spend 
time; you can recognize the color- - [greets a staff member] 

The Blanc de Noirs is the best example of a fruity 
sparkling wine. That's why the people in Champagne love it. 
They say, "It's just like the wine we used to make twenty -five 
or thirty years ago," because of the climate, because of the 
crops, which are not too heavy, because of the Pinot noir, which 
is just like the old Pinot noir. So that's why they like it. 
It's fruity. It is Pinot noir; you can recognize it, even in a 
blind tasting. 

The other one [referring to glasses before them] is more 
complex. It touches all the taste buds at the same time; it 
fills your mouth everywhere. It's not hollow. It has good 
acidity, a very good balance, a long finish- - longer than the 
Pinot noir, which is slightly simpler. 

The last one is the same blend- - 

Hicke: This is the Reserve? 

Maudiere: Yes. We have in those two blends approximately 65 percent Pinot 
noir, 20 percent Chardonnay, 12 percent Pinot blanc, and the 
rest is Pinot Meunier; that's the new addition. 

Hicke: Is this the Brut? 

Maudiere: Yes. That's another reason for the evolution of the taste of 

Doraaine Chandon: small and more complex along the years. This 
one [referring to glass] is the same blend without the Pinot 

Hicke: What does the Pinot Meunier do? 


Maudiere: Maybe you can smell it. It brings the hot bread, or brioche, 
nose. Sometimes people say, "Ah, it's yeasty." It's not 
yeasty; it's the Pinot Meunier which brings that. When you go 
early [in the morning?] to a boulangerie [bakery] in France, you 
smell hot bread, and that's what the Pinot Meunier brings. Hot 

We have only had 5 percent available, but two years ago we 
had 7 percent, and last year 12 percent. So we are increasing 
the percentage of Pinot Meunier in the blends. There's a change 
without shocking the customers. You have to recognize our style 
and say, "Ah, it's always good." Because the customer says it's 
good if it's better. [laughter] In their subconscience they 
find the same pleasure of drinking the wine if it has been 
improved every year. 

Hicke: But still a certain amount of consistency? 

Maudiere: Yes, you have to keep the same consistency. If you don't change 
what you do, in a very light way, people get used to the same 
product, and they get tired. That's my role, to change the 
product enough but not too much. 

Hicke: So it's still recognizable as Domaine Chandon? 
Maudiere: Yes. 

[tasting] It's rounder. You can feel the edge, but [at 
the same time] it's so smooth. 

So this is what I'm doing. 

Hicke: Thank you so much for this interview; you've given us a great 

deal of information about the wine industry, sparkling wine, and 
Domaine Chandon. 


TAPE GUIDE- -John H. Wright 

Interview 1: April 10, 1991 1 

tape 1, side a 1 

tape 1, side b 12 

tape 2, side a 22 

tape 2, side b 33 

tape 3, side a 43 

tape 3, side b 52 

tape 4, side a 63 

tape 4, side b 73 

Interview 2: May 6, 1991 81 

tape 5, side a 81 

tape 5, side b 90 

tape 6, side a 98 

tape 6, side b 107 


Date of Interview: September 11, 1991 116 

tape 1, side a 116 

tape 1, side b 125 

tape 2, side a 132 

tape 2, side b 142 


INDEX- -John H. Wright and Edmond Maudiere 

Almaden Vineyards , 94 

American Viscose Company, 1, 4-7, 9 

cellophane production, 4-6 

market research & development, 

petrochemicals, 5 

radiated food, 7 
anti-alcohol forces, 113-115 
appellation contrdlee laws, 22, 43- 

44, 57, 117, 130-131 
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 7-14, 22- 

30, 33-37 

market research and development, 

and packaging industry, 7-8, 11- 

12, 22, 23 

Austin, John, 42, 52 
Austin-Nichols, 31 

Baker, Peter, 7 

Baldini, Anthony, 45, 62, 63 

Bank of America, loan to Domaine 

Chandon, 51 

Banque Nationale de Paris, 29, 31 
Benard, Yves, 51-52 
Bernstein, Arlene, 17 
Bernstein, Michael, 17 
Bomba, Tex, 45-46 
Boordy Vineyard, 10 
Bower, Keith, 16, 75 
Buena Vista Winery, 18 

Carneros, vineyards, 18-21, 41-42, 
50, 71, 74-77, 103, 105, 106, 126 
drip irrigation and yields, 18- 


soil, 74-75 
Champagne , 

appellation contrdlee laws 22, 
43-44, 57, 117, 130-131 

Champagne (cont) 

bottle types, 135 
characteristics of, 76-77, 141- 


chemistry of, 79-80, 109-110 
consumer tastes for, 32, 43, 99, 

107-108, 114, 140 
Dom Perignon, 58, 65, 92, 139 
grapes, 8, 38, 60, 75-78, 119, 

125, 130, 141 

economics of, 51-53, 82, 114 
equipment, 71, 72, 79, 87-89, 

122, 128, 130 

export of, 43-44, 58, 100, 131 
marketing of, 36, 43, 56-57, 84 
pricing of, 59-60 
soil, importance of, 20-21, 75, 

118, 126 

vs. sparkling wine, 32, 54-56, 
58, 65, 84-85, 108-110, 118- 

119, 125, 127, 131-132, 139, 
141, 143 

technology, 66, 68, 70, 72-73 

tax on, 117 

viticulture, 74, 127, 139 

see also Moet & Chandon; 

sparkling wine 
Chandon, Fred, 89 
Chandon Club, 93-94 
Charmat process, 68-69 
Chevalier, Alain, 32-33, 34-35, 42, 

43, 52, 55, 57, 68-69, 89, 93- 

94, 98 

Christian Brothers winery, 38 
Ciocca, Arthur A. , 103 
Classic Methods/Classic Varieties 

Society, 107-111 
climate, importance of, 21-22, 38, 

41, 71, 81, 105-106, 118-119, 

125, 127, 143 
Clos du Val winery, 81 
Corbett Canyon Vineyards, 103-104 


Corti, Darrell, 26 
Coulon, Philippe, 48, 99 

Davies, Jack, 85 

d'Halluin, Michel, 29, 31, 32, 33- 

Domaine Chandon, 8, 41ff 

buying Shadow Creek wine label, 

chemicals in wine, 128-129, 140- 

designing and building of winery, 

67-70, 121-123 
early winemaking, 62-64 
equipment development, 66, 68- 
73, 77-80, 85-89, 123-123, 
128-129, 130-131, 133-138 
fermentation tanks, 

horizontal, 70, 123-124 
presses, 72-73, 79-80, 130- 


riddlers, 85-89, 128-129, 
Very Large Machines, 85- 


bottle types, 135-137 
fermentation process, 70, 77- 

78, 123-125 
as French business opportunity, 


French financial support, 50-52 
grape varieties, 20, 21, 46-50, 
quality of mountain vines, 

grapes, buying from Trefethen, 

46-47, 125 
growth, 62-115 

marketing strategies, 54-61, 69, 
81-82, 85, 90-98, 107-111 
advertising, 91-93 
Chandon Club, 93-94 
Classic Methods/Classic 

Varieties Society, 107- 
direct marketing, 93, 94 

Domaine Chandon, marketing 
strategies (cont) 

distributors, 94-96 
exports, 94, 96-100 

Australia, 98-100 

Canada, 96 

Japan, 96-98 
pricing, 59-61 
public relations, 81-85, 92, 


restaurant, 81-84 

Visitors' Center, 81-82, 

84-85, 92, 139 
sales outside California, 94 

sparkling wine, 

characteristics of, 76-77, 

80-81, 89, 107-110, 140- 


evolution of, 139-143 
market, 32-33, 40 
methode champenoise, 32, 36, 

69-70, 109 
see also sparkling wine; 

tax on, 52-3 

viticulture, 71-72, 74-76, 105- 
canopy management, 74-75, 


experiments, 105-106 
grafting techniques, 75 
harvesting techniques, 71-72 
pruning techniques , 72 
rootstock, 75-76; 
vineyards , 

Carneros, 41-42, 50, 71, 74- 

77, 103, 105, 106, 126 
Dos Rios, 126 
Mt. Veeder, 20, 41-42, 50, 

72, 126 

Yountville, 48, 76, 126 
winemaking at Trefethen, 45-48, 

62-63, 66, 89, 126-127 

Blanc de Noirs, 64, 77, 98, 

132, 139, 141, 143 


Domaine Chandon, wines (cont) 
Brut, 64, 77, 139, 143 
Fred's Friends, 89-90 
Panache, 102 
Reserve, 139, 143 

de la Serre, Guy, 31 

De Luca, John, 111 

de Polignac, Guy, 39 

de Vogue, Count Ghislaine, 36 

de Vogue, Ghislaine (Mrs. Robert 

Jean) , 35 
de Vogue , Robert Jean, 17, 35, 

37, 39, 42-43, 45-46, 57, 66, 
di Rosa, Rene, 18 
Dillon, Read & Co., Inc., 34 
Domaine Carneros, 56 
Dripeze irrigation, 19 
Drucker, Peter, 115 
Dyer, Dawnine , 64, 65 

East Side Winery, 11 
Eisley, Barbara, 45 
Eisley, Milton, 45 

Finnigan, Robert, 108-109 
FMC Corporation, 5 
Franzia wine, 103 

Gallo, E & J, Winery, 112 
Gavin, James, 13-14 
Geoffrey, Richard, 65-66, 99 
Giles, Kim, 48 
Gomberg, Louis R. , 28-29 
Grahm, Randall, 90 

Hanzell Vineyard, 48 
Harrison, Stuart, 94, 96 
Hart, Jack, 51 
Haskell, John, 34 
Hennessy, Kilian, 42 
Hennessy, Schieffelin & Company, 
36, 94-96 


Hiram Walker Distillers, 113 
Howe , Pat , 64 
Hunsinger, Jim, 103 

Inglenook Napa Valley winery, 46 
International Paper Company, 23-24 
Iron Horse Vineyards, 113 
irrigation techniques, 15, 16, 18- 

21, 119 

drip, 18-21 

Jeanty, Philippe, 83-84 

Kahlua, John, 88 

Korbel & Bros., F. , winery, 32-33, 

40, 86-87, 103 
Korbel wines, 59 
Kornell, Hanns , Champagne Cellars, 


Lider, Jim, 16 

Louis Vuitton Moe t -Hennessy , 31, 

51, 53 

Lyncrest Vineyards, 15, 120 
Lynn, Dick, 14-15 

M & H Ventures, 52 
M & H Vineyards, 52 
Marne et Champagne company, 73 
Marston, Michael, 15 
Marston Vineyards, 15 
Martini, Louis P., 38, 40 
Maudiere, Edmond, 49-51, 62, 64- 
68, 70, 116-144 
and Domaine Chandon, 

building winery, 121-123 
choosing grape varieties, 


early years, 116-117, 138 
at Moet & Chandon, 116-117 
philosophy of winemaking, 129 


Mayacamas Vineyards , 38 

McGrew, Herb, 15-16 

McKinsey consulting company, 23 

Menasco, Al , 14-15 

Mercier, 49, 58, 66, 67, 70, 116, 


Mercier family, 31 

methode champenoise , 32, 69-70, 109 
Mirassou Vineyards, 38 
Moet & Chandon 17, 33, 35, 36, 43- 

44, 48, 55, 57-60, 65-67, 69, 70, 

73, 83, 91-92, 94-97, 99-100, 

109, 116-117, 122, 128, 131-132 

advertising, 91-92 

in Argentina, 65 

Australian wines, interest in, 

choosing John Wright, 33 

and Domaine Chandon, starting up, 
33, 48 49, 55, 69, 83, 94-97, 
117, 128 

French restrictions on, 43-44 

merger with Mercier, 49, 66-67, 

pricing, 59-60 

and vin du speculation, 57-58 

wine style, 109, 131-132 

winemaking style, 73 
Moet-Hennessy, 31-40, 50-52, 95. 

See also Moet & Chandon 
Mondavi, Robert, 25, 27-28, 38, 80, 


Morrison & Foerster, 42, 52 
Mount joy, Bob, 67 
Mount j oy , Danny , 6 7 
Mt. Veeder Vineyards, 48 
Mt. Veeder Winery, 17 
Mumm Napa Valley, 56, 60 
Mure, Bertrand, 32, 33, 55 

Nechutnys, Udo, 83-84 

Owens-Illinois glass company, 136 

Pate, Susan, 92 

Paul Roget 109 

Pernod Ricard, 31 

phylloxera, 31, 75-76 

Pickle Canyon Vineyards, 16, 18 

Piper Heidsieck, 87 

Poirier, Francoise, 38, 39 

Poirier, Renaud, 37-40, 41, 43, 46, 

48-50, 64, 68-69 
Pommery 109 
Pommery & Greno, 39 

riddling, 69-70, 85-89, 121, 128- 

129, 133-138 
Ridgeway, Bob, 6 
Robert Mondavi Winery, 94, 112 

Opus One , 94 
Rockrise Odermatt Mountjoy 

Associates (ROMA), 67-68 
Rodeno, Greg, 102 
Rodeno, Michaela, 89, 102 

Sal in du Midi company, 32 
San Francisco Wine Fair, 110 
Shieffelin & Company 45, 
Schieffelin-Somerset, 52, 60 
Schramsburg Vineyards, 85 
Shadow Creek winery, 103-104 

label, 103 
Sichel, Peter, 4 
Sichel Sohne company, 4 
Sick's Rainer Brewing company, 28 
Simi Winery, 51 
soil, importance of in grape 
growing, 17, 19-22, 32, 74-75, 106, 

118, 126 

Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards, 107 
sparkling wine , 


21-22, 32, 43- 
44, 54-57, 84-85, 108-110, 
118-119, 125, 127, 130-132, 
141, 143 

in Australia, 
bottle types, 
vs . Champagne 


sparkling wine (cont) 

characteristics of, 38-39, 76- 

77, 80-81, 89, 107-111, 140- 

chemistry of, 38, 77-80, 120- 

121, 128, 141 
consumer tastes for, 27, 32, 82- 

85, 91, 93, 99-100, 107-108, 

117, 140-141 
economics of, 52-53, 61, 82, 

equipment, 53-54, 66, 68-73, 77- 

80, 85-89, 130-131, 123-124, 

128-129, 133-138 
future of, 113-115 
grapes, 20-21, 62, 76-77, 103- 

106, 118, 125-126 
marketing of, 40, 56-57, 69, 84, 

89-93, 108, 113-115 
methode champenoLse, 32, 69-70, 


microbiology of, 120-121 
tax on, 52-53, 81, 112 
technology, 62, 68-70, 73, 77- 

78, 89-90, 131 

see also Champagne; Domaine 


Sterling, Barry, 113 
Sutter Home winery, 103, 112 
Sylvania Industrial Corporation, 5. 

See also American Viscose Company 

Thompson, Michael, 113 
Thuet, Joseph, 83 
Travers, Robert, 38 
Trefethen, Gene, 45-46 
Trefethen, Janet, 47 
Trefethen, John, 46-47, 125 
Trefethen, Katie, 45-46 
Trefethen Vineyards, 45-49, 62-63, 

66, 89, 125-128 

grapes sold to Domaine Chandon, 
46-47, 125 

machine harvesting, 127-128 

as winery for Domaine Chandon, 
45-48, 62-63, 66, 89, 126-128 

Tribune wine, 103 

University of California at Davis, 
viticulture experiments, 105 

Vare , George, 103 
Villa Trefethen, 46-47 

Wagner, Philip, 10 
wine, "blush," 132, 141 
wine, "pop," 25, 27 
wine & grape growing, Champagne vs 
California, 21-22, 32, 43-44, 
54-58, 65, 84-85, 108-110, 118- 
119, 125, 127, 130, 139, 143 
Wine Commission, 111, 113 
The Wine Group, 103, 112 
Wine Institute, 36, 111 
wineries, small versus large, 111 


Winery Lake Vineyard, 18 
Wright, John, 1-115, 132 

at Arthur D. Little, Inc., 7- 
14, 22-30, 33-37, 42-43 
in Brussels, 8, 10-14 
California, transfer to, 14 
with International Paper 

Company in Brazil, 22-24 
Wine America Study, 25-29, 

grape growing in Napa Valley, 


management style, 100-102 
military service, 3-4 
packaging industry, work in, 4- 

8, 11-12 

wine and winemaking, early 
interst in, 3, 9-11 
vineyard purchases, 15-16 
youth and education, 1-3 

yeast, in sparkling wine 120-121 

Zepponi, Gino, 87-88 

Grapes mentioned in interview: 

Adams , 9 

Alicante, 14 

Aramon, 75 

Baco noir, 10 

Burger, 49 

Cabernet, 14, 17, 42, 75, 106 

Chardonnay, 17, 18, 20, 38, 42, 46- 
47, 49-50, 60, 62, 64, 80, 99, 
104, 106, 108, 120, 125, 139 

Chenin blanc, 17 

Colombard, 46, 49, 62, 64 

Concord, 9 

Folle blanche, 46, 49-50, 120 

Camay , 14 

Camay Beaujolais, 17 

Green Hungarian, 49 

Grenache , 14 

Merlot, 17, 18, 106 

Niagara, 9 

Pinot blanc, 14, 49-50, 62, 64, 
119, 120, 139, 143 

Pinot Meunier, 141, 143-144 

Pinot noir, 14, 17, 38, 46-47, 49- 
50, 60, 62, 64, 76, 77, 80, 99, 
102, 104-106, 108, 120, 125, 127, 
132, 139, 141-143 

Riesling, 46, 49, 64 

Royales, 12 

Sangiovese, 106 

Sauvignon blanc , 49 

Semillon, 46, 49 

Seyve Villard, 10 

St. Emilion, 40 

St. George, 16 ,18 

Ugni blanc, 40, 46, 49-50, 62, 120 

Zinfandel, 10, 17, 18, 106 

Chardonnay, 39, 40, 47, 49, 56, 76, 

80, 90, 107, 108, 119 
Cognac , 102 
Folle Blanche, 40 
Pineau de Charentes, 102 
Pinot Noir, 39, 41, 48, 49, 76, 77, 

106, 119 

Pinot Blanc, 49, 76 
Ratafia, 102 
Riesling, 107 
Vosne- Romance, 12 
Zinfandel, 11 

port, 48 

white, 18 

Wines mentioned in interview: 

brandy, 102 

burgundy, 25, 106 

Cabernet Sauvignon, 36, 48, 56, 108 

Carole E. Hicke 

B.A. , University of Iowa; economics 

M.A. , San Francisco State University; U.S. history with emphasis on the 
American West; thesis: "James Rolph, Mayor of San Francisco." 

Interviewer/editor/writer, 1978-present , for business and law firm 
histories, specializing in oral history techniques. Independently 

Interviewer-editor, Regional Oral History Office, University of California, 
Berkeley, 1985 to present, specializing in California legal, political, and 
business histories. 

Author : Heller. Ehrman. White & McAuliffe: A Century of Service to Clients 
and Community. 1991. 

Editor (1980-1985) newsletters of two professional historical associations: 
Western Association of Women Historians and Coordinating Committee for 
Women in the Historical Profession. 

Visiting lecturer, San Francisco State University in U.S. history, history 
of California, history of Hawaii, legal oral history. 

1171 0.'